Sunday, April 11, 2010

Primary Perspectives: 'do over'

Some things are important enough to repeat.

I've had discussions lately wherein it would've helped if the person with whom I was exchanging comments had known a little more about me & why I blog. These recent talks were w/ a pacifist who is naive enough to think that violence against women must be physical in order to be real, insidious & systemic. (Sounds like a blockhead kind of man, no?) Thus, this do-over of my very first blog piece - September 27th, 2008. (Pay close enough attention, & you'll even hear why this blog calls itself GTBI.)

“I admit it! I’m a conservative republican evangelical Christian – unashamedly so…”

Such was my ‘coming out’ to some precious liberal friends recently. This, my official debut, came after doing a bit of personal inventory with the changing political winds at my face. Later, I reiterated my proclamation to some of my closest friends (who were probably thinking, “This is news?”), just because it felt so good to say. These aren’t words that I would have so emphatically written or said before. But now, somehow candor is essential. It's time to speak some things.

It started with a discussion that led into a bit of politico-speak wherein the Governor of Alaska & the Republican nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, was being derided. I listened with interest, but didn’t tip my hand, and later left the conversation with gnawing unfinished business. After I screwed up my courage, because there is no coming back from such things, I composed a crisp email, detailing my ‘outage’ to the original conversants, who I trusted enough to not deride me too. Below is a bit of what I wrote them that next day:

Girls, I know we're coming from different places, but let me tell you what she represents to me...Sarah Palin is a woman who - for the first time ever on the national stage - represents me. She's not an angry woman trying to be a man; not a woman who claims to champion my views, but who is so far out of step w/ me that she may as well be on Pluto. She is a woman who loves & respects her man, loves her children, loves being a mother. She is not afraid to be smart & savvy, but won't beat you about-the-head-neck-&-face w/ it. She is unapologetically committed to her faith, & she is conservative politically...So, why start a web log over this? Because I was watching the day her candidacy was announced - and was absolutely stunned. An eerie déjà vu draped itself over my shoulders, and I felt like I was looking in a mirror. Finally - a real woman (who could actually be me), with the potential of being Vice President of the country. A real woman who cares about the things I do - not someone who screams far-left hyperfeminist propaganda & then swears she's speaking for me.

Why write here & now? Because I’ve been writing for some time with a sense of discovery and anticipation, and with a notion that perhaps I have something to say. And because that day, I experienced a shift in perspective.

I'm not sure who'll win this thing, but the pundits are right. Governor Palin’s candidacy is a 'game-changer,’ -- for me, anyway. Primarily, she gives me real hope that conservative women now have a voice in the Women's Conversation of our time; that the Left no longer has a monopoly on "issues that women care about." She is a role model for thousands of women - who now see & know that you don't have to be abrasive & shrill in order to be tough & strong.

That's why they've been trying to kill her voice, kill her reputation, kill her credibility - literally kill it, before (shhhhhh!) any other women get the Big Idea that the feminist agenda has challengers...The media part of it has been beastly, and yes, quite personal. Because when the media tear her apart, they're tearing apart women like me.

So, there you go. Many thanks to Governor Palin for the shift in perspective. And thanks to the other Sarah Palins in my life, some who’ve helped me chart a course since before I have memory. Thanks to those who abrade my conscience, encourage my struggles, cheer my victories, and give me opportunities to serve in kind. You’re helping me live fully, helping me hone our voice and perhaps discover some big ideas.
~~

So thanks for indulging another
do-over. Some things are just important enough to repeat.

~~~

54 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Susannah...

These recent talks were w/ a pacifist who is naive enough to think that violence against women must be physical in order to be real, insidious & systemic

If you'd like to discuss my comments, I'd like to be correctly represented, please. I'm not "naive enough" to think that people can't speak violently and that such violent language does not have consequences.

I am a married man. I have a daughter. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent defender of women than myself.

Our difference of opinion is NOT whether or not people can misbehave in their language or if such misbehavior might have negative consequences. We agree on that point. Understood?

Rather, you falsely claimed that the "leftwing media" has committed violence. I asked for some - ANY - examples. You provided nothing other than a media story on some misbehavior.

I have agreed that the behavior (hanging Palin in effigy, for instance) was wrong. But it was NOT a deadly physical violence.

I'm not saying that hanging a Palin or Obama doll in effigy is good behavior. Clearly it's not.

What I'm saying is that it is not the same as actually physically hurting someone.

Do we arrest someone who hangs an effigy? No, it's not a crime, it's just boorish, bad behavior and - especially when directed towards our black brothers and sisters who have a history of being hung - horrifyingly bad behavior and, depending upon context, may even constitute a threat.

But we all recognize that such bad behavior pales in comparison to actual physical violence.

Do we arrest a vandal who throws bricks through a window? Yes, but we don't sentence them to life in prison.

It's bad behavior, but it pales in comparison to actual physical violence.

That has been my point.

Do you disagree with my ACTUAL point?

Dan Trabue said...

Also, since we both think violent speech is a wrong, too, I guess you and I BOTH agree that hanging a Palin in effigy AND that calling women "Feminazis" is bad, bad behavior and should not be encouraged?

And can we confirm that the media (Left or Right) have NOT, in fact, engaged in any acts of physical violence?

DUTA said...

I like your words on Sara Palin, I like Sara Palin, and I find disgusting, what the media and the opponents do to her.

I think she's got good chances to become President of USA, If, with what's going on now, there will be an USA by 2012.

Susannah said...

Dan~ "I'm not "naive enough" to think that people can't speak violently and that such violent language does not have consequences."
Really? This is the first time you've acknowleged it. Elsewhere, you've said "I still have no idea what you're talking about..." as if soft violence has no psychological effect on society, unless it's actually perpetrated physically.

I believe I represented our discussion fairly.

"Rather, you falsely claimed that the "leftwing media" has committed violence.
NO. I NEVER SAID THAT, NOT ONCE. (If I did, would you please quote me here?) You & your buddy Al (esp. Al) were having such a good time putting those words in my mouth, making fun of my assertions, that you took it to represent what I said. I NEVER SAID that the MSM had committed violence.

I said, rather, that the MSM is responsible for PERPETUATING VIOLENCE when they give these people a pass. Big, big difference; a point of nuance (as Al liked to say) that the two of you missed, entirely.

I am a married woman, a mother of 2 sons & a daughter, a Licensed Professional Counselor, a Yoga instructor, a writer, etc. Maybe it's the LPC part that guides my thoughts toward the psychological realm, & hold it with more seriousness than you do. Does one act of 'soft' violence outweigh one act of 'actual' violence? No - agreed. But when my children & their contemporaries swim in a sea of fluid, soft violent attitudes DAILY, I worry - and with solid reason - about the collective psychological health of their/our culture. THAT's my ACTUAL point.

Susannah said...

DUTA! Gotta run, literally. I'll be back soon... ;)

Dan Trabue said...

I had said...

"Rather, you falsely claimed that the "leftwing media" has committed violence.

And Susannah responded...

NO. I NEVER SAID THAT, NOT ONCE. (If I did, would you please quote me here?)

Easy enough.

Susannah, you said at my blog, and I quote...

"I'm STILL WAITING for you to address what I detailed - quite thoroughly: systematic, pervasive violence perpetrated by the vastly-Leftwing media."

here at 9:04

But, wait, I see... you go on to say...

I said, rather, that the MSM is responsible for PERPETUATING VIOLENCE when they give these people a pass. Big, big difference; a point of nuance (as Al liked to say) that the two of you missed, entirely.

You now appear to be suggesting that you MEANT TO SAY "perpetuating" violence, not "perpetrating" violence. That IS a big difference.

But you did not say "perpetuating" at my blog, but "perpetrating." Which, of course, is a synonym for "committed." So, there appears to have been an honest mistake (on your part) in using the wrong word, is that what I'm seeing now?

Do you understand now why I was confused? That you were, in your words at my blog, accusing the media of perpetrating violence, and I was asking for some support and suggesting that you were quite mistaken, which, as it turns out, you were.

Forgiven, honest mistake, if that's all it was.

Dan Trabue said...

Now that that is hopefully cleared up, you said...

Does one act of 'soft' violence outweigh one act of 'actual' violence? No - agreed. But when my children & their contemporaries swim in a sea of fluid, soft violent attitudes DAILY, I worry - and with solid reason - about the collective psychological health of their/our culture. THAT's my ACTUAL point.

We appear to agree - violent language is a bad thing. Violent attitudes, violent protests, violent speech all can help to PERPETUATE a culture of violence, I agree.

So, then, are we agreed that for Limbaugh to use incendiary words like "Feminazis" - comparing feminists to nazis! - is a bad thing and a poor attempt at humor? And that hanging a Palin or an Obama in effigy is bad behavior?

Are we agreed?

My only concern, then, from that point, is allowing for actual humor - even touchy humor, as well as actual protest, even questionable protest.

I'm not wanting to BAN Limbaugh from using divisive, hurtful language like "feminazis," nor am I wanting to ban hanging people in effigy, as both come under the wide tent of "free speech." Are we agreed on that point?

I think there is a fine line between enjoying free speech and engaging in hate speech - speech that results in people being driven into a frenzy of hate that actually leads to violence.

And THIS was my concern raised on my blog - that in the last decade or so, it seems that some on the Right side of things have allowed hateful speech to spill over into dangerously violent actions. Deadly actions.

We have not had, in the last decade or so, any serious incidents of LEFT wing people actually committing physical violence against their political opponents and so, while all such hateful speech concerns me, I think I have a legitimate reason to be especially concerned about hateful speech on the Right, right now.

Disagree if you wish. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, as to this...

Maybe it's the LPC part that guides my thoughts toward the psychological realm, & hold it with more seriousness than you do.

I have worked in mental health. My degree is in special education, working with children with behavioral disorders. I have worked with violent children and families in violence at our local mental health agency. My church is populated with social workers and psychologists and mental health workers and those who work specifically with women and violence, as well as peacemakers from a variety of backgrounds.

All of that to say, I am WELL aware of the problems of violence and can assure you, you take it no more seriously than I do. In fact, it is one of the reasons I am a pacifist - the very serious problems of violence in all its forms.

Just to clarify then, we agree that violence is a problem and no one is giving anyone a "pass" on violence.

Susannah said...

DUTA!! Back again. I'm so glad you came by; I've missed you. Thanks for the support of Sarah Palin. Not sure what her political future is, but she has given voice to a broad swath of America that was being dismissed & derided heretofore. We now know we have a voice (& you see what they're doing to her - as they would to any one of us who tried to represent the same). She's one gutsy lady, & I thank God for her!

Susannah said...

Dan~ Okay. I hadn't realized my mis-type. I must've been in a hurry/distracted when I wrote 'perpetrated' rather than 'perpetuated.' Honest mistake. You're right. And thank you -ever so kindly- for your forgiveness of such.

It's baffling, given that my CONTEXT clearly was that the MSM supports, not carries out, violence, that you couldn't have inferred meaning out of the totality of the CONTEXT. Instead, you sat on one mistake (which could have been clear up by context of the whole) & hung the entirety of your argument on it, rather than listen to what I was saying. Frustrating, indeed.

Glad we're finally on the same page.

As for 'Feminazis,' I'm gonna go w/ Rush Limbaugh on that, by-&-large. Haven't heard him say it in a long time (don't listen to him much), & I do think it's in poor taste to corral a whole group of people into one stereotype (esp. an 'incindiery' one). But, for some who associate themselves w/ Feminism, it fits. Have you ever listened to these people: Sandra Bernhardt, Madonna, Janine Garafolo & their ilk? Have you ever heard the awful, horrible, HATEful way they speak about Sarah Palin (& thereby women like ME)?? If their attitudes were actually picked up by a larger sector of society (say, like the MSM), then we'd have a REAL PROBLEM on our hands - as Germany did during the rise of the SS.

So, for the record, I don't think Rush is doing a service to humanity, but he IS making a valid (if not tongue-in-cheek) point.

"we agree that violence is a problem and no one is giving anyone a 'pass' on violence."

...except the MSM, Hollywood, those who control the majority of media-diet that Americans consume daily.

You & I are in agreement - glad to know we have some things in common, too (MH csg., etc.). But my point stands: when the MSM calls out ANY ONE of those women listed above instead of praising, promoting, & cheering them on (think the ever-popular "The View"), I'll be willing to say that they're not PERPETUATING soft violence. Until then they're guilty as charged.

Annie said...

Susannah...love the Palin post. I was formerly very interested in the political process and had just gotten weary of never really feeling represented, like I had to just "make do" with what was offered up. The first night I saw Sarah on TV I stood there, amazed, like you, my first thought was...."This is ME!" Then I teared up because for the first time EVER, I saw in her a female role model I could point my daughters to.

I went to see her speak at a Right to Life Rally in Columbus a month ago and she was even more impressive in person than on TV.

God bless her...for her courage, her stamina, and her strong stand. She is definitely a "game changer"!

Annie ~*

Susannah said...

Hey Annie! thanks for the props! "I teared up because for the first time EVER, I saw in her a female role model [in politics] I could point my daughter to."

I KNOW, right?

Have had you in my thoughts & prayers. ;)

Grandma J said...

Great post, Susannah. I love Sara Palin, and meeting her at her book signing at Ft Hood was something that is right up there with meeting Ronald Reagan.

She may never be President, but she will always be a role model for women and all conservatives.

Purple Voter said...

"We have not had, in the last decade or so, any serious incidents of LEFT wing people actually committing physical violence against their political opponents and so, while all such hateful speech concerns me, I think I have a legitimate reason to be especially concerned about hateful speech on the Right, right now."

What? Maybe you just didn't hear about it from the Main Stream Media. Or maybe you are conveniently amnesiatic.

2008 Republican National Convention, St. Paul, MN. Bricks thrown through windows and several elderly delegates hospitalized. Bags of sand dropped off highway overpasses onto vehicles below - attempted murder. 23 yr-old man convicted and sentenced to 24 mos in prison for constructing molotov coctails intended to be thrown on police cars to disrupt the convention. TX woman tried for threatening to kill the informant who led to the arrest of the above 23 y.o. And that was at ONE event. Does someone have to actually
DIE for you to consider it serious?

Perhaps you also missed it this summer when the elderly gentleman's finger was bitten off at a townhall meeting by a union member. (I'd say he qualified as a leftist).

So, maybe the lefties haven't KILLED anyone lately but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous and violent. They routinely engage in acts a lot worse than supposedly spitting or hurling a few bad words.

Let's not forget the Movement for a Democratic Society who still believes the old Bill Ayers' credo of "kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents."

Is this any worse than shooting an abortion doc? NO. But it's only by dumb luck that no one else has been killed and it's only a matter of time. I am so sick of this hyper-partisanship where nobody will admit any fault of their side. Violence and hate is unacceptable no matter the source or political persuasion and it is a childish and dangerous position to hang onto such a partisan version of the truth.

Dan Trabue said...

To be sure, some on the Left have engaged in dangerous vandalism, throwing rocks through windows and other bad behavior. Dangerous behavior.

But in the last decade or so, there have been no serious attempts to intentionally harm or kill folk by those on the fringes of the Left. On the other hand, there HAVE been real attempts - too many successful - to deliberately harm and kill people by those on the Right.

I'm saying that there is a spectrum of bad behavior...

1. Speaking of violence is wrong, encouraging violence with your words is wrong - and this happens on both the Left and Right.

2. Vandalism, throwing bricks and other ugly/dangerous forms of civil disobedience is wrong - even worse than the spoken violence - and it happens on the Left and Right.

3. Finally, ACTUALLY engaging in violence with the goal of causing bodily harm and death to your political opponents is wrong - a great deal worse than the other two categories - and it has only (or at least mainly) been on the Right that this has occurred, and it has occurred too often.

It is this attempt to downplay this sad, horrible trend - suggesting "you do it, too," rather than standing strongly against it, that works against your "side," seems to me.

I can't stress how strongly I stand against the lesser two forms of violence that I describe above - molotov cocktails and throwing bricks through windows is seriously dangerous and seriously wrong.

It's just not AS wrong as deliberately trying to kill people.

I'd hope you could agree.

Susannah said...

Purple! YEEEHAAAA!! You are my new hero! AND you've done the homework that I didn't take time/didn't have time to do...but in my gut knew could be done. Thank you.

Dan~ Really, sir, you're starting to sound like your friend Al.

"throwing bricks and other ugly/dangerous forms of civil disobedience"..."It's just not AS wrong as deliberately trying to kill people." Holy CRAP, man! This IS how people get killed - on purpose!

STOP trying to absolve your folks of responsibility & throwing off on those w/ whom you don't agree. We've admitted it. You continue to refuse.

BRAVO again, Purple!!

moresolidify said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...

How many times would you like me to say CLEARLY that such behavior is wrong?

Throwing bricks, preparing molotov cocktails and other behavior like that is WRONG, whether the person doing such behavior is Leftish in political orientation or Rightish.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times does it take for me to be taken seriously?

Are you disagreeing with me that such behavior is not AS WRONG as intentionally trying to kill people? I thought you already acknowledged that, as bad behavior goes, vandalism and throwing type behaviors is BAD, but not AS BAD as trying to KILL PEOPLE.

Where are we disagreeing? You appear to be waffling. Are vandalism and other similar acts as bad as killing people? If you still agree with me that it's not, then we are back to agreeing. "Levels one and two" behavior (as I identified above) ARE BAD. Trying to KILL PEOPLE is worse.

The Left and Right BOTH have problems with 1 and 2. Only the Right has a problem (in the last ten years or so) has an identifiable problem with actually trying to kill people.

My point remains. You appear to be trying to defend the murderers by comparing them to the vandals. You'd be better off just sticking to "Murder is clearly wrong." and quit engaging in moral relativism.

Buck Ofama said...

Susannah,

Why do you even try with these people? When the fringe left threatens to kill someone - it's idle, harmless, free speech. When it comes from the mouth of the right, it is a heinous portent of sure to come violence.

When the far right throws a brick through a Democratic congressman's office window, it is a murderous racist assault but when the far left drops 50 pound bags of sand 30feet onto moving vehicles and tries to blow up automobiles in crowded pedestrian areas, it's harmless vandalism.

As Tolstoy said in 1897, The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps your visitor with the oh so clever name (is that what passes for high wit around here?) can understand this simple reality: I am opposed to bad behavior like dangerous brick throwing and molotov cocktails - whether it's from the Left or Right.

AND, I am even more opposed to attempted murder - as bad as throwing bricks is (left or right) the murders and attempted murders by a few on the Lunatic Right are even worse.

Is this fella (gal?) with the dirty name able to grasp that simple statement? If so, perhaps he/she is able to agree that we ought to be opposed to BOTH, but especially to murder?

And if that's not asking too much, perhaps he/she can agree that murder is not happening from those on the Left, only from those on the Right?

Three ideas. Simple ones to grasp and ones we should all be able to agree with, IF you aren't tied to an ideological mindset.

Tolstoy was right.

Susannah said...

Dan~ I won't be pushed into a corner by you: "You appear to be trying to defend the murderers by comparing them to the vandals." ...a statement designed to further incite me to argument.

My position is clear - I don't disagree w/ you. Murder is murder.

Throwing sandbags/bricks off an overpass, etc. resulting in death is ALSO murder - First Degree, if I'm not mistaken. (as someone said earlier: it's DUMB LUCK, not intention, that nobody's dead as a result).

Last time I heard tell, attacking another human being is ASSAULT, not vandalism.

YOU, my friend, are engaging in "moral relativism," as you look down your olfactory bulb at those of us who hold 'less enlightened' center-Right opinions.

I repeat: "STOP trying to absolve your folks of responsibility & throwing off on those w/ whom you don't agree. We've admitted it. You continue to refuse."

Buck~ Welcome back! You can get in line behind Purple voter for HERO of the day!

Bravo to the, let's say, 5th power...Thanks for your input!

Susannah said...

Buck~ Just re-read your comment. 'Bravo' to the at least 10th power!

I may just look up that Tolstoy quote & use it in my sidebar...(unless Dan tries to beat me to it...)

Dan Trabue said...

I looked up the sand bag story here, and that truly is a deadly and stupid assault. The one guy who did it, David Mahoney, was rightly convicted of assault for tossing one sandbag over a bridge on to a highway. His 90 day sentence seems to me to be WAY too light for such a stupid and potentially dangerous action IF that is the whole story.

He was wrong - deadly wrong, and it WAS just good fortune that no one was injured.

However, for the record, it does not appear that he "threw sandbags" on to a highway with speeding cars, but rather, threw one sandbag in front of a slow moving RNC bus on a closed highway exit ramp. Stupid, stupid, stupid, but not nearly as dangerous as some are making it sound like.

Mahoney's side of the story is...

"First accused of aiding and abetting the drop of a bag of sand in front of a slow-moving delegate bus on a closed highway exit ramp, authorities then levied a count of terroristic threats and assault for each so-called "victim" on the bus who claimed to feel "terrorized.""

IF that is true.

NONETHELESS, his stupid vandalism (and that appears to be closer to what he actually did, rather than attempted assault) is probably the closest thing I've heard of in the last few decades of a Liberal trying to hurt someone and, from any story I've read, he wasn't trying to hurt any one. He was just stupid and angry.

The point STILL remains that you can offer no examples of US Liberals trying to harm someone and certainly not trying to kill someone over the last ten or twenty years. On the other hand, there are several incidents of murder, attempted murder and assault (assault with an intent to cause harm, as opposed to dropping one sand bag in front of a slow moving bus in an attempt to block it).

No, no moral relativism on my part. Vandalism and stupid actions of the sort that Mahoney and brick throwers have engaged in is incredibly wrong and stupid and the wrong way to protest those with whom you disagree.

But actually killing and assaulting those with whom you disagree is light years worse and that has only happened on the Right in the US in the last decades.

Again, I would hope that we could all agree to that and not try to defend "our" side by comparing even the worst vandalism to murder and/or mass murder.

purple voter said...

What am I missing? I haven't heard of the murders of any elected officials lately. Some threats sure, which should be soundly condemned by all. But haven't there always been death threats against politicians connected with unpopular or contentious policy-making?

Is the argument here that somehow death threats made by one party are worse than those made by the other? Nonsense.

Or is it that one side is more threatening than the other? That's probably a subjective notion on which we will never all agree. But I propose that there are absolutely no objective facts to back up Dan's claim that the right is more dangerous than the left.

Here some real data: There are a total of 310 Democrats in the House and Senate. There are 218 Republicans. To my knowledge, Democratic Reps Pelosi, Perriello, Driehaus, and Slaughter have received death threats - that's 5 out of 310 or 1.3%. No one has actually been attacked, killed, or injured.

Accordingly, Republican Senator Bunning and Reps. Cantor and Brown-waite have recently been threatened. And while you probably didn't hear about it like you did the Democratic cases - they were just as vile and dangerous. A man in Philadelphia was arrested for threatening Cantor and his family, shots were fired at his offices, etc. and the threat to Brown-waite was "Just wanna let you know that I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this bitch does not live to see her next term." Anyway, that's 3 out of 218 Republicans whose lives have been threatened, or 1.4%.

Looks to me like the "dangerous" language is very evenly distributed.

Dan Trabue said...

But I propose that there are absolutely no objective facts to back up Dan's claim that the right is more dangerous than the left.

* Just a week or so ago, seven people were taken into custody in raids by an FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force as part of an investigation into an Adrian-based unit of the Hutaree, a group that professes it is training in modern armed combat techniques for a prophesized coming battle with the Antichrist.

* Buford O'Neal Furrow, Jr. - a former Aryan Nations member and security guard who perpetrated the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting in August 1999.

* James Charles Kopp was convicted in 2003 for the 1998 sniper-style murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, an American physician who performed abortions.

* Jim Adkisson in 2008 attacked a church in Tennessee for being too liberal, killing two and wounding several others.

* Scott Roeder in 2008 went into a church service and killed a doctor with whom he disagreed politically.

* Eric Rudolph killed and attacked several people associated with abortion clinics in the 1990s.

* Richard Poplawski killed three police officers in 2009. He was a right-wing racist who feared big gov't.

* Timothy McVeigh, of course, was the Oklahoma City bomber, killing 168 in 1995.

For starters.

There are several others who may be less easy to say they're Right or Left wing, but they share a fear of Big Gov't and a willingness - Von Brunn and that guy that flew the plane into a building, for instance.

There are no corresponding list of "left wingers" who have actively sought to kill those they disagree with.

Now, I'm not saying these people are anything but nuts, BUT, they are people who fit a fairly common profile - conservative, anti-Big gov't, sometimes involved with militias. This is the existing problem that those on the Right need to come out strongly against - to distance themselves from their more nutty and dangerous brothers. And comparing these killers to those who engage in vandalism only serves to minimize their atrocities.

I'd hope we could agree on this.

Purple Voter said...

OK - That I would agree with. Just trying to understand exactly where you are coming from.

Susannah said...

Purple~ "Is the argument here that somehow death threats made by one party are worse than those made by the other?"
Yes, that is the contention.

"Nonsense."
Agreed. People are people, all w/ the potential to go over the edge, no matter their leanings.

Dan~ Enough already.

I do not agree that 'Right is more inclined than Left' to be violent. IMO your personal bias says that Leftists have somehow transcended human nature (enlightened, no?), & are gentler/kinder/more reasonable than the Right.

It JUST ISN'T TRUE. Human nature is human nature, no matter what the politics. Just like SIN is SIN, is sin...regardless of the degree.

That's my position. You won't agree. But neither will I be 'worn down' or shamed into agreeing (by being lumped into the same category - distantly - as the Eric Rudolph/Tim McVeighs, etc.) with you. I have NOTHING even remotely in common w/ any of those people...

But ENOUGH of the tedious prattling. I don't want to be rude, folks, but this is getting old.

Tolstoy was right, indeed.

Dan Trabue said...

I agree, bad behavior is bad behavior and that human nature is human nature.

Let me put it this way:

In the 1960s, the LEFT had a problem (oh, the Right had plenty of problems, too, but I'm not talking about them). The William Ayers of the world were acting out in a deadly manner and they were doing so from a Left-ish starting place, at least a self-proclaimed Leftist position.

While the vast majority of those on the Left rejected Ayers ideas and approach, he was STILL starting from a Leftist position. That made him a problem for the Left.

Today, we ALL have a problem with the anti-Big Gov't types who think it okay to embrace deadly violence and kill those with whom they disagree. This is a problem for everyone. Left, Right, Middle.

But, BECAUSE these people are starting from a self-proclaimed Rightist position, they become a special problem for the Right, just like the Ayers of the 1960s were a special problem for the Left back then.

I fully understand that you reject the Von Brunns, McVeighs, Furrows, Kopps, Adkissons, SOME militia types, etc, etc as not being kindred to your side of things.

I further fully understand that many if not most of these folk are not playing with a full deck.

But because they self-identify and, in fact, start from a more Rightist position, it becomes especially important for the Right to clearly reject them and NOT try to compare them to the less deadly vandal types, saying "See? You have those who misbehave, too!"

Just like it was especially important for the Left to distance themselves from the Ayers type in the 1960s, even though they really had nothing much in common with him.

And that's my final word. I think it is an entirely reasonable opinion, but you may do with it as you wish.

Susannah said...

"The William Ayers...were acting out in a deadly manner...it was especially important for the Left to distance themselves from the Ayers type in the 1960s"

...Now, his veritable protege is our President...

"This is a problem for everyone. Left, Right, Middle."

Bingo.

Perfect agreement, at last.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm sure you would agree, Susannah, that it serves no good purpose to misrepresent things. Obama can't rightly be called Ayers "protege." They were acquaintances who worked on some good causes together.

We'll all do better to stick just to the facts, right?

Buck Ofama said...

Yawn. This guy just can't shut the buck up.

That's my final word. Really.

Dan Trabue said...

So, you think misrepresenting facts is a GOOD thing?

I don't know Susannah well at all, but based on what little I know of her, I think she does not believe in bearing false witness.

Dan Trabue said...

And, if you want to say a curse word, step up and say it, fella/gal. What are you, in third grade?

Anonymous said...

Brevity is an
Art not recognized by those
Bereft of logic.

Dan Trabue said...

Haiku? Do you do?
To what end would you thus speak?
Brevity IS good.

So's logic.

Kitty's Cats said...

To Dan Trabue: Being new here, it seems you would care not to overstay your welcome. Our hostess is more than gracious to create this forum for discussion (or lurking, in my case). But your grasping the last word each & every time another speaks really is bad form.

I don't know if you know Susannah very well or not. (I'm fairly new here too.) From all I've seen, she is cordial to her guests. You might consider reciprocating by allowing somebody else the last word, for once.

Dan Trabue said...

I was not striving to have a "last word." I was unaware that the conversation was over.

I have said that I gave my final word on the topic of right wing/left wing misbehavior and I have ended that topic.

Susannah then offered a false statement, I merely sought to correct that. If we hope to communicate with one another - Left, Right or otherwise - we really need to curb the false representations of the Other's positions. I was merely offering that suggestion, certain (hopeful) that Susannah would agree.

It is not my intent to overstay my welcome, I apologize if I've come across that way.

I would hope that you could agree that I've been more polite than others here. Nonetheless, I'm always glad to go away if a blog manager wants me to go away. All they have to do is say so.

Dan Trabue said...

In fact, I probably wouldn't have commented here at all, I'll point out, if Susannah hadn't (unintentionally, I'm sure) misrepresented my position in her post. I have not had anything to say about Palin here, just attempted to correct misunderstandings of my position.

RG said...

To all the great, strong women of America, Sempre Forte!

Sandy said...

To kill, harm or maim
Hurts just the same whether you
Are red or you're blue

Susannah said...

Dan, Dan, Dan~ Please refrain from being 'sure' of that which you believe I will agree. It comes off as a bit pompous & condescending - just keepin' it real.

Second: Okay, so 'protege' was a bit strong. BUT the point it serves is to illustrate that a man of the SAME ILK as William Ayers is now our Pres. Or, one could say of the same 'persuasion,' the same 'radical politics,' the same 'ideology.' Whatever...

Now that I think of it, 'protege' is much better use of everyone's time & comment thread space.

It ain't Haiku, but it sure was succinct; and you got the point.

Susannah said...

Buck~ Since you've been castigated as one who has offended those with more tender sensibilities, please remember to cover your mouth when you yawn. ;)

Anon~ Alright. Now we're getting somewhere. Short. Pointed. Clear. (I'm not a poet, so I'll let you & Dan duel over the form.)

Dan~ It can be done! Only 17 syllables!!

Kitty~ Glad you came by & commented. In my experience, what you're talking about it "hijacking a thread." Over @ some less friendly blogs I was accused of it once, after leaving just 1 comment. Nice.

But thank you for your kind words. I do try to be cordial & welcoming. Come back any time!

Dan~ I do not want you to go away. Kitty does have a hint of a point, however... There's a reason "beating a dead horse" has become a common phrase. (Our people are fun here, though; no? ;)

RG~ LOVE what you said!! Thanks so much for coming by!

Sandy, darling! You're at it too?? Actually, this one is really good! You put everything I've said into 17 syllables. See, Dan? It can be done on both sides!

Z said...

I know the media said almost nothing about Cantor's office being fired upon but, hey, he's a Republican, so who cares????

Also, I sure wish Obama'd distanced himself from Ayers, but instead he lied that he didn't know him and, with the knowledge that he'd lied, he still got elected...I wish he'd distanced himself from Frank Marshall, too.....we're paying for the anger and misplaced disdain at America now.

Susannah, I've got to admit I'm going a bit off Mrs Palin lately...hate to admit it, but I am.

Jim said...

Z said:

I know the media said almost nothing about Cantor's office being fired upon

This is false in more ways than one. First of all, all kinds of media reported on it. I know MSNBC did as well as CBS news. Certainly Fox did. The San Francisco Chronicle did and so did the New York times. Most of the blogs I read reported it.

And what did they all (except maybe Fox) include in their reporting? That there was no evidence of this building being "fired upon". It was determined from forensics that the bullet was fired randomly in the air and just happened to come down into a window in of a conference room in a building that Cantor uses occasionally. It was actually NOT his office.

tha malcontent said...

Hang in there Suz, we can take whatever they can dish out.
Because we know the truth
We know that both Obama and Eric Holder are gutless, idiots who do not represent the peoples wishes, needs or wants. And who are addicted to power. In my mind, Eric Holder is like his Boss Barack Obama, an enemy of America and a friend of radical Islam.

I for one -- have faith in my fellow Americans. WE will cast off these slave/masters in DC come November. If you cannot participate by voting them out -- then sit in your basement and chew your nails. BUT -- for goodness sakes -- get out of OUR way.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tha malcontent said...

Anonymous said...
God you are one condescending, self-righteous bitch. Holy moly!



"Are You Talking To Me?"
I never said that you didn't have a right to have an opinion. I just said that it was worthless.

With me, it's a LOVE/HATE thing... and Today is the HATE Day
I'd like to tell you but my medical records are sealed.
Now get back on your meds, and back off the bottle. Or better yet,go get laid. You sound like you need it.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it was Susannah whom I was addressing. However, upon reflection, I realize that it is I who is the self-righteous, condescending one. I should not have called names. It is Susannah's blog and she has every right to stick to her guns, even when I think she is dead wrong. Please accept my humble apology. I am an asshole.

Erics Eyes said...

Anonymous said...

Actually, it was Susannah whom I was addressing. However, upon reflection, I realize that it is I who is the self-righteous, condescending one. I should not have called names. It is Susannah's blog and she has every right to stick to her guns, even when I think she is dead wrong. Please accept my humble apology. I am an asshole.






I guess that you are right about that!

Susannah said...

Z~ Hey there baby-cakes! Yeah, I know about "going off a bit of" Sarah Palin. See, it wasn't her personality that was so appealing when I wrote this piece, it was that she gave Real women a voice - finally!! And she still does...future candidate or not.

Jim~ splitting hairs again, I see.

"It was determined from forensics that the bullet was fired randomly in the air and just happened to come down into a window..."

That's kinda like saying 'it was determined that the bullet...just happened to come down into the Oval Office window - though the Pres. was in Sri Lanka @ the time...'

OK, whatever; you can have this one.

Mal! Glad to see you! Believe me, I'm hanging in there. Been REAL busy lately, so I'm not too concerned w/ people like our Buddy, 'Anon.'

bluepitbull said...

Suzannah, what have you done? One post and all of the springer audience comes out (most likely waiting for a chance to yell, "JERRY!").

Burning people in effigy is a violent act, according to your ideological translation, Dan. What are some others.....lemme think....oh yeah, Cindy Sheehan's fantasizing about going back in time and killing Bush at birth, lefty congressmen threatening or wishing they could punch Bush, and there are more, but I won't try to crowd out the comments section the way you have.

Pacifists are usually naive individuals that have an over simplistic world-view either through inexperience with other cultures, or listening to too much John Lennon.

The liberal (classic liberal) view provides for Jus Ad Bellum (the right to wage war). And I believe it is the least complicated of the philosophies on war.

I'll leave you to contend with the Springer audience.

Good post. Keep on rockin' in a free world, sista. And always remember, freedom is free!!! Or was it isn't....I'm confused.

Jim said...

OK, whatever; you can have this one.

Good call.

Kitty's Cats said...

To Pittbull: right on, dude

"Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!..."

Susannah said...

Eric! Good to see you around! It has been a while, no? Welcome back.

Bluepit! What have I done??
I have NO idea! And did you get a load of that 'Anon'? *Sheesh!*
Have an argument w/ me - fine - but don't dive-bomb my blog...(Then s/he rights her/himself & acts all humble -- or does s/he?). Smoke & mirrors, folks...

Jim dear~ You can see that this thread has been fairly tedious. I just don't feel like another run -- maybe next time! ;)

Kitty! So, do you think he's the father of her baby??