January 13, 2011

"Civility' is the new word for 'censorship.'"/"'Civility' is the new word for 'shut the heck up.'"

If government officials use their speech to try to persuade us not to criticize what they are doing, is that censorship? No. It's not. There's no coercion. If you shut up, it's because they persuaded you. (And maybe you shouldn't be so gullible.)

The 2 quotes in my post title are from today's Rush Limbaugh show. The first quote was a caller who was freaked out by last night's memorial in Tucson. The second is the way Rush reframed it. Rush is right, but the caller was not.

People tell each other to shut up all the time. You have to learn not to accept the pushback. Censorship is when the government coerces you. I'm not hearing a proposal for censorship. Ironically, it would be the least persuasive way to try to get us to shut up. We'd yell and scream. And we'd sue. And win.

67 comments:

mesquito said...

And "dialogue" is the new word for "lecture."

R.L. Hunter said...

And it usually means they have no facts to prove their point.

PaulV said...

Giffords read the 1st Amendment in the House. Why do they mock her reading?

yashu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mesquito said...

Yeah. Rush is right. But when the Congress moves (hopefully) to end the subsidy for public broadcasting, our earholes will be filled with cries of "censorship." When in fact, America will be merely saying "shut the hell up."

TWM said...

I say we "target" the new civility.

Coketown said...

Another way to compel (but not coerce) someone to shut up is to say they are accessories to homicide by virtue of their heated speech. This seems to be a tic among progressives, but the minute it becomes effective I'm sure the right will start, too.

I'll let you know the moment it becomes effective.

LilyBart said...

"But when the Congress moves (hopefully) to end the subsidy for public broadcasting, our earholes will be filled with cries of "censorship." When in fact, America will be merely saying "shut the hell up." "

I think what America will be saying by defunding (hopefully) NPR is, "say what you'd like, but I'm not paying for it."

ricpic said...

How about self-censorship? That's what the unrelenting leftist assault on decency is aimed at creating in those who would stop the statist steamroller. We just won. We just won a huge electoral victory against statism. And yet after 5 or 6 days of spew from the Left that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are accomplices to murder!..not a peep. Not one word of support for decency and denunciation of filth by the leadership of the Republican Party. So the Left has won. The opposition has been cowed into self-censorship. The Left is killing the Republic. Right before our eyes. Not a peep.

mesquito said...

I think what America will be saying by defunding (hopefully) NPR is, "say what you'd like, but I'm not paying for it."

I've said that hundreds of times. The retort is, "Why are you in favor of censorship?"

I'm sick of debating cretins and idiots.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

The Constitution is a living document and so the First amendment must be bent to forbid any speech that is offensive. To liberals.

Conservatives, on the other hand, can suck it. There is no speech so offensive that they don't deserve it.

That about sums it up.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Everything I know about civility I learned from the left over the last 10 years.

The Musket said...

Ann said "There's no coercion. If you shut up, it's because they persuaded you. (And maybe you shouldn't be so gullible.)"

I agree - let' not be gullible, it really is about what we accept and how much self-censorship we're ready partake of. What about the new edition of Huck Finn -- is that self-censorship?

Question: What about hate speech - is that censorship? The USA doesn't have effective hate speech - yet.

TWM said...

"The opposition has been cowed into self-censorship. The Left is killing the Republic. Right before our eyes. Not a peep."

I disagree. I think the right won this. We've never been as uncivil as the left - not even on Rush Beck Palin's worst days - and all we have to do is sit back and watch the left's heads collectively explode as they are forced to hold their wicked tongues. The won't be able to do it, of course, and all the better since every time they spew their hatred it makes them look worse and worse.

We fight back of course, but simply by pointing out how bad they are, and we all know they'll be very bad indeed.

chuckR said...

Right, it's not censorship. The Fairness Doctrine, as the Progs would like to implement it, that would be censorship.

Bender said...

Censorship is when . . .

Must we really quibble over such technicalities?

Whatever you want to call it, it is government seeking to suppress speech, it is government officials wanting you to shut the hell up. It is Obama and the Dems playing the thug once again. That may be the job of a despotic tyrant, but that is not the job of those who serve the public in a free society.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

There is censorship, and there is de facto censorship. The first is unlikely to happen, as Ann points out. The second can be the result of unlegislated regulation promulgated by an ideologically motivated executive. Explicit threats have been made to reinstate the "fairness" doctrine, which, by Obama's lights, would require only a fiat by the FCC. The left simply cannot stand that there is still one communications venue that is available to conservatives.

wv: cusinedi-- "my cusinedi just sold me a hot LCD TV"

Lem said...

Bush celebrated un-civility...

edutcher said...

Civility for the Demos uses the same parameters as bipartisanship.

Do it our way, don't object, smile as if you were enjoying it.

This was also the soviets' definition of world peace.

Lem said...

Obama is on a pace (baseball slang hated by Tim Mccarver) to be the least heckled president in history..

I have no idea what the left is talking about when they accuse the right of un-civility.

Alex said...

Another way to compel (but not coerce) someone to shut up is to say they are accessories to homicide by virtue of their heated speech.

In the UK this is not a joke, but very real. You WILL be prosecuted as an accessory for your speech.

Just Lurking said...

If you shut up, it's because they persuaded you. (And maybe you shouldn't be so gullible.)

This comes to mind:

"We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Hillary Clinton

Youngblood said...

Bender wrote:

"Must we really quibble over such technicalities?"

Yes.

VietPundit said...

Sarah Palin is not responsible for the Tucson shooting. Mickey Kaus is.

"A campus e-mail sent this week by the chancellor of UC Berkeley has drawn criticism for linking a Tucson shooting rampage with Arizona's tough immigration law and the failure of the DREAM Act."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/comments-by-uc-berkeley-chanceller-on-arizona-shooting-attrack-criticism.html

Bender said...

Yes

Well, I'm not joining in. It is diversionary and misses the point entirely.

So, go ahead and have such an inane argument without me.

Mikio said...

I posted this already having arrived late to a 200+ comment thread, but it's appropriate here too, so what the heck.
---------------------------------
If freedom of speech is the "old assumption" we should be "willing to challenge," I'm going to fight. -- Ann Althouse

Fight? Conservatives/libertarians/tea party people already lost. Unfortunately, it took this tragedy to do it, but they now have to censor themselves of their identity-driven, sickeningly stupid, irresponsible gun rhetoric or face a much bigger public ass kicking from now on and it won’t be from just us liberals anymore. Not for awhile at least.

Don’t believe me? Let’s see how long it will be until Palin or Bachmann puts out another gun metaphor again.

This is the silver lining in all this that I see.

kent said...

I posted this in response to Mikio's gassing in that same prior thread, but it's appropriate here too, so what the heck.

********************

Glenn Reynolds on the left's twitching, frothing obsession with Sarah Palin:

"But here’s what’s going on in the dance between Palin and what she calls the 'lamestream' media: Every time they attack her, they wind up doing something that hurts them worse than it hurts her. She may not become President, and she may not even want to be President — though, regardless, it’s in her interest to keep everyone guessing as long as possible — but with little more than an Internet connection and Facebook she’s done more lasting harm to their position than anybody else. Last night Barack Obama threw them under the bus over the whole 'rhetoric' question, just hours after she had managed to work them into a snarling frenzy with an Internet video. Even though it’s hurting them, they can’t — and I mean, literally, psychologically can’t — leave her alone. And she’s getting rich the whole time.

"So I don’t know about 'Presidential,' but who’s dumb, here?"

QFT.

Phil 3:14 said...

Over-read and over reaction

Quaestor said...

Mikio shouted : ...they now have to censor themselves of their identity-driven, sickeningly stupid, irresponsible gun rhetoric or face a much bigger public ass kicking from now on and it won’t be from just us liberals anymore...

Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds

Now that that's clear who kicked whose ass?

Methadras said...

When leftards tell you that there should be civility as a means to really say "shut the fuck up!!!" what they are also trying to do is redefine civility and on their terms, not yours.

SteveR said...

Yeah the Fairness Doctrine is censorship.

Mikio said...

kent -

That was in response to my post? That doesn't even make sense. What I posted is about something much bigger than Palin. Work on your reading comprehension. Talk about obsessing over Palin. You, Reynolds and your ilk truly are delusional in thinking you're hitting the target, but you've just got a cloud of dart holes on the wall, in the couch upholstery, on the refrigerator, in the cat... It's just pathetic.

kent said...

That doesn't even make sense. [...] Work on your reading comprehension.

Ahhhhhh... sweet, unintentional online irony. Yummy.

Revenant said...

I think the right won this

I don't think so. I think Obama salvaged things with his speech, especially by changing the subject to civility.

Mikio said...

kent -

Ah, evasion. I volleyed back with an assertion. Try debunking it instead of evading it. Here, I'll repeat it for you:

"What I posted is about something much bigger than Palin."

Quaestor -
Now that that's clear who kicked whose ass?

And another dart hole added to the wall. If you're right, then high profile conservative gun rhetoric should continue on unabated. I predict it will be abated for at least a month and possibly, in certain cases, until the next election proving there's a guilty conscience self-censoring it. We'll see who's right.

Quaestor said...

kent isn't being evasive. If you're too dense to see the irony of your political dowsing (at least a dart throw is pseudorandom) it's not his fault.

kent said...

Ah, evasion.

Strike Two. "Pointing and laughing" =/= "evasion."

Poor, doomed thing. Reynolds limned you perfectly, from initial posting to follow-up foot-stampings and tantrums... and it's so far over that poor, flat thing you're using in place of a head, all you can make out are the faintest residual wisps of contrail.

Bored now.

kent said...

If you're too dense to see the irony of your political dowsing (at least a dart throw is pseudorandom) it's not his fault.

Words, evidently, are not poor Mikio's metier. It happens that way, sometimes.

Pasteur famously observed that "Chance favors the prepared mind." Mikio is, demonstrably...

... errrrrrrr... "unprepared." ;)

Mikio said...

The fact that neither of you can even describe the gist of my argument, much less how anything you've said debunks it, and instead just keep congratulating yourselves nervously laughing like Beavis & Butthead is all anyone with any sense needs to see to understand why I'm not going to bother with either of you anymore on this. Ciao.

Quaestor said...

You haven't made an argument. What's there to describe?

kent said...

neither of you can even describe the gist of my argument

gassing @ 10:32. Considerably more than your "gist" was worth, certainly, by any objective measure. You'll definitely want to reconsider that whole "Reading Comprehension Spokesmodel as a career choice" thing, in any event.

Ciao.

Hiss and run, kitten. Hiss and run.

jr565 said...

Mikio wrote:hey now have to censor themselves of their identity-driven, sickeningly stupid, irresponsible gun rhetoric or face a much bigger public ass kicking from now on and it won’t be from just us liberals anymore...


I love it. You spread the calumny from Palin to Bachman too. It's not just fear of guns its fear of metaphor. You just have to shut your opponenets up, when you feel threatened so will say ANYTHING. You truly are pathetic.
Lets quote Bachman in full so you see that she was not threatening nor talking about guns, nor would anyone with half a brain or who wasn't a complete partisan ever confuse her speech with a call to arms.
If you do a google search for her armed and dangerous speech and then try to get the quote on a lefty sight they ALWAYS misquote it. It starts "I want people armed and dangerous". Occasionally the slightly more honest ones have ellipses in front of the offending quote, signifying that she said something prior to that as in "....I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the engergy tax". But regardless the suggestion is that she is saying she literally wants people armed (with guns) and dangerous.
Here is the fully quote so that you can see what a shrill LIAR you actually are. Ready?
"I'm going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back."
So what are they armed with? Materials! Facts about the energy tax. She wants them armed with knowledge to fight back against the engergy tax. Of course, if you could find a single lefty leaning website that posted the whole quote, you'd realize that their suggestions that she was telling people to arm themselves and overthrow the govt or commit violence is a lie. Which is why they don't post the whole quote. THey are liars.
YOU ARE A LIAR.

And how about this statement from a dem governor:
“When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver — that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip,”
Sounds like he's saying George Bush should be shot and killed, with a gun. How do you know that some crazed loner wont go after Bush because of the heated rhetoric we heard from them about how he was Hitler and turning the state into nazi germany?
Of those hundreds of twitter posts that say that Pain should die, how do you know that the next crazed killer isn't writing said posts, or reading them to galvanize himself to kill Palin and her family?

kent said...

You spread the calumny from Palin to Bachman too.

Well, remember: Loughner only seethed and obsessed impotently over one woman, after all.

The up-and-coming Loughner wannabes prowling about in the shadows right now, on the other hand, doubtless know they're going to have to step up their respective games, if they genuinely want to make an equivalent media splash next time out.

jr565 said...

Second in regards to the idea that Palin went beyond the pale in using cross hairs to target DISTRICTS not people, are you seriously suggesting that anyone construed that she was saying they should literally target people with guns? THen why didn't that happen during the election? THis gunman goes on his rampage months after the election is over. Show us any Palin supporters who assumed that they were supposed to shoot any candidates? YOu cant because it never happened.
And if you think Palin started the maps with targeted districts, you should know that that has been a device long in use in politics by the left and the right, because it;s an effective visual.
I've already posted these before, but since you're new here, why don't you comment on these with honesty and tell us if you think the democrats were targeting people to kill, or if anyone seriously for a second didnt understand the metaphor that the district was being targeted electorally, and not that the politicians were to be killed.
Here's the first:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
Note, that they use bullseyes on said states, and they target them. These states are "behind enemy lines". If the mere utterance of war metaphors is now beyond the pale then shouldnt' the DLC similarly be guilty of murder in your eyes?
OR how about this one?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653867/posts

This one is particularly good because the legend shows that the bullseyes are "targeted republicans", not districts, republicans. And to make it even better, when this map was active, if you clicked on the bullseye you could see the picture of the republican being targeted. So, if a crazy person got it into their head that these politicians were to be targeted and killed, this map gave a nice little photo to make their job easier.
ONly we both know that noone on the left or right batted an eye at the visual on the map, because EVERYONE who wasn't a lefty stooge trying to destroy sarah Palin utterly, knew that the map simply meant that those districts are the ones that the dems wanted to win, and were being targeted, but not in a sinister way. BOth of these maps appeared before Palin's. I never heard you or anyone on the left scream about the escalating violence of the language, nor when people were making movies about killing Bush did I hear anyone on the left suggest that maybe the language was goign too far?
ANd why is that?

The Crack Emcee said...

Been there, done that.

Not that there's anything wrong with you doing it, too.

kent said...

I never heard you or anyone on the left scream about the escalating violence of the language, nor when people were making movies about killing Bush did I hear anyone on the left suggest that maybe the language was goign too far?
ANd why is that?


Yup. Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years

Here and here and here and here and here. Just for example, mind.

Oh, and then there's this:

“And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, ‘We have our good days and our bad days,’ ” the ad continues. “We should put this S.O.B. up against the wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days,’ and pull the trigger.”

... and this...:

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

... and this...:

“Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ” [Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.]

... and this...:

"Death of a President."

... and these...:

"I Hate It When I Wake Up and Sarah Palin Is Still Alive."

... and these...:

Montage of Twitter Users Wishing Painful, Violent Death on Sarah Palin

... and these (loooonnnnnnnnng list):

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

You had eight long, full years, lefties, to conduct yourselves in such a fashion that we might then be reasonably disposed towards taking you even remotely seriously, long afterwards, re: your tiresomely self-righteous lectures and plaints on the subject of "hate speech."

Guess what...? You FAILED that one, simple test. Spectacularly.

Try planning ahead, next time out.

kent said...

Good TMR posting, Crack. ;)

G Joubert said...

No, it's not censorship. But when it comes from elected representatives or from those with the juice to influence certain elective representatives, doesn't its advocation inch a little bit closer to towards censorship? Or, as they used to say back in the day, "highwaymen acting under color of law?" Just askin'.

Youngblood said...

"Well, I'm not joining in. It is diversionary and misses the point entirely."

Suit yourself.

However, if a liberal tells you to shut the heck up, and you do, you are not being censored, you are being cowardly.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. This is a point that I had to drive home again and again for liberals and Lefties during the Bush years.

John Stodder said...

The "civility" approach to controlling debate is going to prove to be a useless weapon in the hands of the left, because, as has been documented, the right by no means has had a monopoly on incivility, and because the issues the left wants the right to be civil about are precisely those issue, in 2010, that the public is with the right.

For instance, take health care repeal. Sure, the left will say that repeal is inherently negative and thus uncivil. An empty calorie argument, but one that might get endorsed in the NY Times. But the GOP can come back the exact same way, saying, "Democrats are blocking our repeal efforts, and blocking us is uncivil. If they were civil, they would politely get out of our way." That wouldn't work with the NY Times, but it would destroy the political advantage granted to the allegedly more civil side of the argument.

dont tread 2012 said...

Precisely, because repubs HAVE been 'civil', most of them have/are being criticized for being too much like dems/liberals in allowing themselves to be cowed. So, their behavior does go beyond civility (backwards!) into cowardice.

I contend the left are crying 'uncivil' because the new 'tone' is unseemly to them - that is, folks aren't playin' their game anymore. They are standing up and saying 'enough'. Its similar to the bully taking notice of the skinny kid that just punched him in the nose after years of abuse (uncivil rhetoric intended).

The pressure must be kept on the left in a completely nonviolent way. Lefties unravel in the face of reasoned debate. Witness the hysterical drama queens that lurk here at Althouse; twisting and contorting to further the left's meme that purports to pin the Tucson tragedy on discourse, rather than the evil creep that pulled the trigger.

Indeed, 'civility' is just another PC construct, a synonym for the specious 'bipartisanship'.

Mick said...

It is exactly the new word for censorship. By meeting them in the middle they seek to drag the discussion to the Left. This is the same for the "birther" epithet, since they believe that it would be unfair to require one to be born of US Citizens w/in the US to be ELIGIBLE to be POTUS.
People tend to view it as a 'rights" issue. It has nothong to do w/ "fairness" or "rights" and everything to do w/ eligibility and SECURITY (to prevent foreign influence).


wv: sionon --yes or no

Roger J. said...

It appears Mr Mikio does not understand the difference between assertion and argument--I think any beginning debate student is told that assertion is not argument

his assertion was that republicans will stop using target/gun imagery b ecause of the tuscon tragedy--we will see. And we will see if dems stop using it as well.

John said...

Every time you hear "civility" think compliance. Big Brother knows best, you just agree and move along.

Denys said...

Belly Button Rings

traditionalguy said...

Obama is on a roll by preaching civility now that he has, with Pelosi's help, engineered a socialist state here. It is a perfect example of the parable of the poker game, that at midnight the winners are yawning and looking for their coats while the losers are hollering deal. Conservatives want a new deal from Congress that we now have a voice in. The GOP Brahmins are going to screw up totally if they block Palin, because she can win this fight as a woman running against the Smiling Black Man and win, while all of the smart white men cannot .

franglo said...

Censorship is when the government coerces you.

That's not what censorship is. Try "mandates" instead of "coerces." If the government censored, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't currently be swimming in a vault filled with gold bullion a la Scrooge McDuck, now would he?

Punk asses. Go ahead and sue everybody with your bad self. But if there was ever a moment to drop the self-righteous moral stance it would be right about now-- if you had anything approaching good taste, Althouse.

Fen said...

So, after 2 years of calling us racists, the Left wants civility?

They can go fuck themselves.

Darleen said...

I'm not hearing a proposal for censorship

I heard a certain Bob Brady wants to introduce a bill making it a federal crime to use images of crosshairs and bulls eyes "against" any federal official.

I think that would quality as a call for censorship.

Darleen said...

oops

quality = qualify

need.more.coffee.

jr565 said...

Kent wrote:
You had eight long, full years, lefties, to conduct yourselves in such a fashion that we might then be reasonably disposed towards taking you even remotely seriously, long afterwards, re: your tiresomely self-righteous lectures and plaints on the subject of "hate speech."

Guess what...? You FAILED that one, simple test. Spectacularly.

Try planning ahead, next time out.


That's some list. And it doesn't even scratch the surface of Bush hatred exhibited by the left nor by the slanderous accusations against republicans as well as the violent rhetoric directed towards them by libs.
Libs are just incapable of self awareness.

kent said...

It appears Mr Mikio does not understand the difference between assertion and argument

BINGO!

Phil 3:14 said...

Mikio;
"You, Reynolds and your ilk truly are delusional in thinking you're hitting the target, but you've just got a cloud of dart holes on the wall, in the couch upholstery, on the refrigerator, in the cat... It's just pathetic."

Incivility (highlighted for your consideration)

Sofa King said...

Remember how concerned Democrats were about civility when someone assaulted President Bush for political reasons? Oh, no, that's right, they celebrated the assaulter instead.

kent said...

Remember how concerned Democrats were about civility when someone assaulted President Bush for political reasons? Oh, no, that's right, they celebrated the assaulter instead.

They still do:

Arianna Huffington Films Role in Bush Assassination Fantasy-Film

josephmcnulty said...

It can only be said that the “Memorial Service” was ghastly. From the start – a Native American fake “medicine man,” who also laid claim to being Hispanic – the “Memorial Service” was part Paul Wellstone “memorial,” part college pep rally, and part campaign event.

Have we forgotten how to stage a dignified, nonpolitical memorial service, a quasi-funeral? The Democrats, based on the Wellstone precedent and last night, are incapable of doing so and probably have no interest in doing so.

Did you notice that Michelle Obama did not even wear black? Many of the women were dressed inappropriately, some even wearing Hilliary Clinton-style pantsuits!

When Obama arrived (and after his speech) the applause was not polite; it was filled with cheers, campaign-style.

He finished with a maudlin image of nine-year-old Christina Green “jumping puddles in Heaven.” Is this what one says about the tragic murder of a child?

Did you notice the neurosurgeon wearing his white lab coat? Are we supposed to believe that he hurried over from the hospital and did not have time to take off his lab coat?

I knew that we were in the trouble when I saw the Native American fake “shaman.” Standing there with his ceremonial feathers, he invoked the “male strength” of Father Sky and the “feminine strength” of Mother Earth and blessed each creature that walks on the earth or flies in the sky. I especially liked his “blessing” of animals that “slither” since most speakers tend to ignore the reptilian community (a shocking example of an oppressed community still subject to unthinking hate and prejudice).

When I saw the fake “shaman” (a member of the faculty at the University of Arizona! Can the Wiccans be far behind?), I wondered what group the Democrats would favor next – would a left-handed lesbian sing the Star Spangled Banner? Would a pre-op transsexual speak about how much Congresswoman Giffords had done for the “transsexual community”).

Did you notice the anti-Americanism of the Native American fake “shaman”? He talked about how his family had escaped the “genocide” of the 19th Century. He also graced us with the Indian name for Tucson (in case you didn’t know where you were).

Imagine, they kept away all Christian and Jewish clergymen from the “Memorial Service” (although all the victims were Christian or Jewish).

The “Memorial Service” was a minister and rabbi-free zone. There were no Native American victims, but the Democratic Party paid off its constituent groups.

The President of the University of Arizona can be proud that he has managed to put a Yaqui Indian on the faculty (the glorious "diversity" of Tucson).


What a “Memorial Service.” I am sure that if someone in my family had been shot down at the Safeway, I would have drawn great comfort from it.

I also thought it was remarkable that Obama has transitioned from lowering the seas to opening the eyes of wounded congresswomen in medically-induced comas. I guess a Mesiah naturally does these things?

Oh, and at the end, I thought it was quite endearing that half the crowd seemed to get their cameras and video cameras out to take souvenir pictures of Obama. Imagine dozens of people taking video at a funeral.

Obama was even posing for some of them. Boy, that really showed how determined he was to bring solace to Tucson. They should have held the "Memorial Service" at a NASCAR event. Let the healing begin!

josephmcnulty said...

It can only be said that the “Memorial Service” was ghastly. From the start – a Native American fake “medicine man,” who also laid claim to being Hispanic – the “Memorial Service” was part Paul Wellstone “memorial,” part college pep rally, and part campaign event. Have we forgotten how to stage a dignified, nonpolitical memorial service, a quasi-funeral? The Democrats, based on the Wellstone precedent and last night, are incapable of doing so and probably have no interest in doing so.

Did you notice that Michelle Obama did not even wear black? Many of the women were dressed inappropriately, some even wearing Hilliary Clinton-style pantsuits! When Obama arrived (and after his speech) the applause was not polite; it was filled with cheers, campaign-style. His speech was interrupted numerous times by applause, like a campaign rally.

He finished with a maudlin portrait of the nine-year-old Green girl “jumping puddles in Heaven.” Is this what one says about the tragic murder of a child?

Did you notice the neurosurgeon wearing his white lab coat? Are we supposed to believe that he hurried over from the hospital and did not have time to change out of his lab coat? Or was he asked to wear the while lab coat to be immediately identifiable to the television audience?

I knew that we were in the trouble when I saw the Native American fake “shaman.” Standing there with his ceremonial feathers, he invoked the “male strength” of Father Sky and the “feminine strength” of Mother Earth and blessed each creature that walks on the earth or flies in the sky. I especially liked his “blessing” of animals that “slither” since most speakers tend to ignore the reptilian community (a shocking example of an oppressed community still subject to unthinking hate and prejudice).

Did you notice the anti-Americanism of the Native American fake “shaman”? He talked about how his family had escaped the “genocide” of the 19th Century (presumably inflicted by white people).

Imagine, they kept away all Christian and Jewish clergymen from the “Memorial Service” (although all the victims were Christian or Jewish). The “Memorial Service” was a minister and rabbi-free zone. There were no Native American victims.

What a “Memorial Service.” I am sure that if someone in my family had been shot down at the Safeway, I would have drawn great comfort from it.

I also thought it was remarkable that Obama has transitioned from lowering the seas to opening the eyes of wounded congresswomen in medically-induced comas. I guess a Mesiah naturally does these things? It was tasteless of him to try to claim credit for her increased consciousness.

Oh, and at the end, I thought it was quite endearing that half the crowd seemed to get their cameras and video cameras out to take souvenir pictures of Obama. Imagine taking pictures at a funeral. He was even posing for some of them. Boy, that really showed how determined he was to bring solace to Tucson. They should have held the "Memorial Service" at a NASCAR event. Let the healing begin!