“Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
by Tina Grazier
The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution has been under considerable attack of late. Rights of speech and of religion, guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, have been challenged with vigor by those in our citizenry and government who believe in oppressive socialist and Marxist forms of governance.
In one instance political activists, intolerantly outraged by remarks of an extremely popular radio talk show host, moved beyond verbal responses, condemnation, and boycott to attempting to use the FCC to remove the host from the airwaves. Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem wrote a piece for CNN which says in part:
This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.
I invite you to watch the video posted in a previous entry for a rebuttal to these incredulous words but I warn you the language is fraught with, how did these women phrase it? Oh yeah, “toxic, hate-inciting speech.
The hypocrites have heretofore tolerated speech of similar flavor and focus but because of the political persuasion of the host in question, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, they are now determined to use the power of government to remove him in a critical election cycle.
Free speech is a fundamental right that is precious to anyone who values individual rights and freedom of expression. It is blatantly obvious that politics is involved when language well within the parameters of speech used by those who seek to ruin Rush are suddenly deemed too offensive and worthy of closeting. This cannot be tolerated!
The second instance involves the president’s attempt to control religious organizations’ purchasing choices in opposition to their deeply held religious beliefs. These may seem like petty concerns to many of our more secular citizens. What difference could it possibly make for the Catholic Church, or any other religious organization, to allow birth control in its health care coverage? If you are among those who think this way you might want to reconsider what your indifference could ultimately bring your own doorstep.
If this fundamental constitutional right can be waved in one instance what is to stop others from being dismissed or ignored at the command of overzealous leadership?
Our socialist friends want us to get caught up in the window dressing they are using to advance a radical transformation of our country. Birth control, women’s health, and intemperate speech are not issues requiring federal action. The right of citizens to explore and be exposed to various political and religious ideas has been an inherent part of the American experience from before the Declaration of Independence. The right of the church to determine and practice its tenets of faith without intervention from government is a core ingredient to America’s founding and ideals. Our republic has allowed the people, as individuals, to choose how we will live and express ourselves and it has worked for many generations. It has worked whether or not a citizen is religious and whatever his political persuasion. We cannot fail to see that the important issue here is freedom.
I was thinking about these events in our recent history, and the politics behind them, when I came across an article in The American Thinker called, “Hate Crimes and Occupy Protests” by Lee H. Heilig. The article’s focus is hate crimes but the sentiments expressed apply equally to the above mentioned assaults on our freedoms. Consider:
What hate crime legislation will do is create a dynamic of proper versus improper thought, as determined by government. It is not a feat of intellectual gymnastics to deduce that a government that can punish criminals for wrong thinking can eventually punish law-abiding citizens for the same.
George Orwell in his seminal work 1984 is the go-to author for examination into the possibilities that exist when government is allowed to control not just the means of production, but the means of thought itself. This idea is not lost on the statist. Indeed, those who seek a dominating role of government in the lives of citizens recognize the politics of group identity as a means to an end. By segregating persons into racial, ethnic, and even gender and sexual preference groups, the statist can incrementally erase the identity of the individual, while guiding the individual to cede personal responsibility for thought to the group. Hence, the burden of introspection, of critical thinking, and of personal accountability is lifted. The Group now carries the burden for achieving whatever the goal may be. With time, the Group and government become indistinguishable.
American statesman Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.” Here, Franklin clearly makes the symbiotic connection between freedom of thought (or conscience) and political freedom. It should not require a venerated statesman to make such a connection. The bond between free thought and liberty should be intuitive to all who might consider an opinion on the subject.
My God! The country I grew up in is being lost to a group of radicals that have pushed an agenda incompatible with freedom. They have infected our children with group think and the notion that they deserve a free lunch and can, as part of a group, demand and get it. They have been schooled to give up individual identity for the comaraderie and power of group and to target anyone or anything that is “other” for destruction if they fail to fall in line. They have been taught that group replaces individual and family. Lost are the ideals that made America strong, independent, civil, tolerant, innovative, prosperous, generous…and humble before a power greater than us. Right is called wrong and evil is called good. This has created a divisive, truly ugly, deteriorating, nearly transformed America.
In November we have a chance to set our feet on a better, more familiar and satisfying path. If we are fortunate enough to rid ourselves of the radical Marxist/socialist elements in our government we will have managed only a good beginning. The real work to restore our great nation will require a long term commitment and constant vigilance. We must speak out for our founding ideals to be taught to future generations. We must speak out about the values of hard work and reward, generosity and tolerance, responsibility and civility, and justice as a matter of individual rights rather than special interest or group rights. If we do nothing else in our lifetimes, we must give to our children and grandchildren the blessings of liberty. We must take that incredible vision of freedom that our forefathers bequeathed to us and bring it to our workplace, churches, and schools, to our legislators and our legal system.
We must vow to live as free people and defend freedom whenever and wherever it is challenged or stymied.
My Country tis of thee…sweet land of liberty…of thee I sing…Land where my fathers died…land of the Pilgrim’s pride…from every mountain side…Let Freedom ring!
Ben Franklin knew it was important to defend and preserve our freedoms and our republic. George Washington led our first citizens in a war to guarantee we could live as free people. We have been given the legacy; now it is up to us to restore it for our posterity.
It was my understanding that the FCC has nothing to do with Rush and his fiasco. I thought the advertisers are dropping him.
To me this pressure for advertisers to drop Rush is no different than One Million Moms pressuring JC Penney to drop Ellen. The AFA is always urging us to boycott one organization or another over political things. Rush ran his mouth and he has to live with the consequences.
But the ability to boycott and pressure advertisers is freedom of expression in America.
Personally none of this would have ever happened if the Republican party had actually done what they were elected to do and that his fix the economy and create jobs. And they can start with getting rid of handouts. All of them. This means stop with the endless unemployment, stop with the welfare, stop with the oil company, farm and defense subsidies. Just stop giving away tax money.
And they can stop giving into religious special interests. I am not Catholic so I don’t want my government taking orders from bishops and priests. This makes them no different than Iran and its orders from mullahs. If Darrell Issa wants to hold a hearing, why doesn’t he look at the corrupt Obama DOJ that has been robbing us of our civil liberties while Issa howls about birth control.
Tina, this may be a slight tangent, but it’s something that bugs me. The author of that American Thinker piece, in addition to getting hate crime laws completely wrong, cites George Orwell to make his case. I frequently see conservatives invoke Orwell or call certain things “Orwellian” as part of an argument against the left.
This makes me wonder if conservatives who do this know that George Orwell was deeply committed to socialism. In fact, he once wrote that “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.”
Many conservatives interpret Orwell’s classics “1984” and “Animal Farm” as warnings against socialism. But this just isn’t true. They are warnings against totalitarianism, and if we take Orwell’s word for it, they are arguments FOR socialism.
That said, I do think the term “Orwellian” properly applies to the efforts by Steinam et al to get the FCC take Rush off the air. While I have no sympathy for Limbaugh whatsoever, and I think people should stop listening to his garbage, I do not believe in turning over more power to a body such as the FCC, whose entire purpose is to censor free speech. And I do not believe Orwell would believe in that either. I do think that Fluke could take legal action against Rush for slander, but that has to be her call; a government agency should not target a public speaker in this way.
So on this issue, I agree with you that Steinam et al are wrong.
Princess: “To me this pressure for advertisers to drop Rush is no different than One Million Moms pressuring JC Penney to drop Ellen.”
Constitutionally speaking, you are right, there is no difference. But ethically speaking? Huuuuuge difference.
People are boycotting advertisers of Rush because of bullying, sexist attacks he made against another person, something he has a very long pattern of doing.
One Million Moms* is boycotting Ellen’s advertisers because she has committed the grave offense of Existing While Lesbian.
Rush has a long history of bullying; Ellen has a long history of opposing bullying.
Boycotting Rush = Standing up to a bully
Boycotting Ellen = Being a bully.
*Or as I like to call this hate group, “A Couple Dozen Bigoted Moms, and Other Assorted Internet Trolls.”
Re: “Many conservatives interpret Orwell’s classics “1984” and “Animal Farm” as warnings against socialism. But this just isn’t true. They are warnings against totalitarianism, and if we take Orwell’s word for it, they are arguments FOR socialism.”
What utter and complete nonsense. Further proof that the left will believe anything, no matter how false or absurd, as long as it supports their political agenda and world view.
Orwell knew well that socialism was a facade for totalitarianism. He spent a lifetime exposing it as such. Try reading Orwell himself, including his letters, instead relying on the tripe your professors or other indoctrinators expound and using that as your filter for truth and reality. And quit pissing on Orwell with such nonsense, please. Those of us who know, respect and admire Orwell would appreciate it.
On a separate note, A Soldier’s Deck Of Cards —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGPKpIuX3cY
Princess I’m not in favor of boycots but people can do whatever they want. The nags asking the FCC to remove Rush from the airwaves for speech that isn’t any worse than others have used was a political effort to use the power of government to silence his voice. I think that is really dumb! The good news is that those who hate Rush can go right ahead and hate him (and not listen to him) and the rest of us that enjoy his show and don’t find him offensive can go right on listening…their efforts to get him off the air backfired…big time. Rush has several new sponsors and is doing just fine.
“Personally none of this would have ever happened if the Republican party had actually done what they were elected to do and that his fix the economy and create jobs. And they can start with getting rid of handouts. All of them. This means stop with the endless unemployment, stop with the welfare, stop with the oil company, farm and defense subsidies. Just stop giving away tax money.”
Princess I think you have a lot of agreement on all of that. I have to take exception on two points. The only thing government can do to help the job situation is cut regulations and taxes. Oil companies don’t get a dime from taxpayers. The thing that is called a “subsidy” is actually a business expense. It costs a lot of money to locate oil. Not every location that is explored pays off. The government allows this business right off up front to fascilitate finding oil which helps keep supplies up and prices down. Since all Americans benefit it’s a good deal for us citizens. Oil companies pay a much higher rate of tax than other businesses so I think the arrangement is fair. They pay a higher rate in taxes than they receive in profits when all is said and done.
Other than that I’m with you. We need to simplify government and the tax code to create certainty so that the people can create jobs and we can get this country moving again. And we need to get Obamacare overturned before 2023. I wouldn’t count on a lot of help in thse goals from democrats, however, so the republicans are going to need a lot of support and a lot of pushing from us.
“And they can stop giving into religious special interests. I am not Catholic so I don’t want my government taking orders from bishops and priests.”
Princess you do get that you have this a** backwards? The Constitution guarantees the people freedom to worship as they plkease without interference. the government was attempting to interfere, get between, these church organizations and their beliefs. Government is the entity that is overstepping it’s bounds. This amendment was written to protect the people from government power and interference.
“If Darrell Issa wants to hold a hearing, why doesn’t he look at the corrupt Obama DOJ that has been robbing us of our civil liberties while Issa howls about birth control.”
Issa has been looking into the DOJ. And his hearing wasn’t about birth control; it was about First Amendment rights!
Pelosi’s hearing was about birth control. it was a politcal ploy to change the subject..I guess it worked with you.
The entire point of this piece is freedom from governmentinterference. You are the same as the church. Your rights of free expression and religious freedom (including the right to not have a religion) is under assault with government mandates that dismiss personal conscience beliefs. An assault on one of us is an assault on us all. If we the people don’t stand up for each others freedoms and ri8ghts we will lose them.
Orwell as quoted by Chris: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.”
Chris, socialism as he understood is difficult to define without more than this one statement. Having observed first hand the horrors of totalitarian governments one could expect that anything better would be something to favor.
What I have observed through the years is that socialism, always has elements of totalitarianism in it and leads ultimately to totalitarian rule. The fallen nature of man would explain this. Unless constrained by healthy morality ego driven men will often seek ultimate power and glory. Our founders were well aware of this when they gave us a republic. They did, however, say it would not work without a moral citizenry that was ever vigilant to keep government within its bounds. They knew free will existed in every being and designed a government that would be limited so as not to interfere with that free will and expression.
Socialism is constructed as a pretense that implies government is a better manager of human conscience and urge. It requires people to relinquish pieces of themselves until they are compliant and empty. That reason alone makes it is distastful to me.
“…in addition to getting hate crime laws completely wrong…”
I have to say you are willing to speak with authority when you think you are right.
But it must also be said, this is a matter of opinion. I am well aware that your opinion differs from that held by most conservatives, including this writer. We value all individuals; we see them as human and seek and support laws that punsih based on the same and without prejudice. (blind justice) Laws that punish based on group affiliation will eventually make another group (the jews, the bankers) other. Very distasteful and extremely unjust in a free society based on equal rights!
Rush has a long history of creating absurd methods for contrasting points of view or exposing absurdities. People who disagree with Rush often fail to get the point or take offense thinking his meaning something other than what it is. He is a human being and has on occassion stretched the lines of acceptability. He is no different from any other individual in public office or entertainment…including our president! (clinging to their religion and guns…they bring a knife we bring a gun)
The real problem the left has with Rush is that he doesn’t agree them and he refuses to let them be the only voice Americans hear. He doesn’t bend to their will. He doesn’t fall in line with the PC rules or the cause of the day, ie global warming, Keynesian economics, or social engineering. He does, however, express opinions that a majority of Americans also hold or support. His audience is made up of conservatives, independents and liberals. Since 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 20% as liberal that makes his voice an important reflection of the majority of the country. Chris you just don’t get him and that’s fine but you should know that equal time would not require absurd (sometimes ugly) speech were it not for the events of the day that prompt this response. Everything Rush puts together is in response to events in the news or comments and actions that liberals take…he doesn’t start the conversation; he completes it.
“One Million Moms* is boycotting Ellen’s advertisers because she has committed the grave offense of Existing While Lesbian.”
I don’t know who “one million moms” are but it would be interesting to know what THEY say the boycot is about. (Just googled and discovered they pulled the boycot..,.good!) I don’t mind individuals choosing to boycott by not tuning in or not buying a product…I think organized boycots are dumb and against our founding principles. Live and let live worked for many years. What was that old saying about fences…anybody? Was it, good fences make good neighbors? Something like that.
I’ve always liked Ellen; she’s a very funny woman. Her personal life is her business. I wish everybodies was!
Thanks Pie…heads up!
Re: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it.”
Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) never did clearly define nor find the Democratic Socialism he sought. He was, however, a sincere anti-fascist who was nearly killed in battle in Spain. In 1937 he wrote: “For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before.”
Yet reality never measured up nor produced his elusive vision, and he knew well why (as expressed in the major themes of his major works) — the corrupting influence of mans desire for power over his fellow man.
By 1943 Orwell had, evidently, pretty much given up his quest for the elusive “Democratic Socialism” when he wrote, “The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.”
In short, people are simply too Orwellian to make Eric Arthur Blair’s grand vision of Democratic Socialism actually work.
Blair was also a committed anti-capitalist, yet in 1938 he (perhaps begrudgingly) admitted, “For some years past I have managed to make the capitalist class pay me several pounds a week for writing books against capitalism.”
Ultimately, in his pursuit of “Democratic Socialism” George Orwell became best known for writing books and essays about how socialism fails and necessarily descends into totalitarianism.
That particular irony seems to often be completely and utterly lost on contemporary socialists who barely even bother to try and conceal their totalitarian urges in their headlong pursuit to completely dominate all aspects of society from academia, to media, to government and commerce.
And therein lies the seeds of the ultimate failure of socialism, as Orwell clearly had seen and foreseen.
Turns out Obama and democrats have a history with the Catholic church going back to when Obama was a senator.
Looks like he’s trying to now fulfill his campaign promise.
===========
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVN2MMuiedI&feature=player_embedded
“There was faith diversity on the podium at the Inauguration just no Catholics.
Why were no conservative Catholics invited to the Democratic convention in Denver and not a single Catholic faith leader included in the Presidents inauguration?
The reasons may go back to the summer of 2007 when then-Senator (and candidate) Barack Obama made a pledge to Planned Parenthood concerning his first act as President:
Obama pledged his allegiance to Planned Parenthood: Im absolutely convinced that were not just gonna win an election, but more importantly, were gonna transform this nation.
Fast-forward to April 29th of 2009 when the President was forced to address his unfulfilled promise to Planned Parenthood, stating that passing the Freedom of Choice Act was not the highest legislative priority. It is also worth noting that Senator Obama was a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-long-has-obama-been-fighting-catholics-consider-the-history/
Thank you Pie. It’s hard to imagine anyone reading Animal Farm and taking away from it that socialism is the road to anything but totalitarian oppression. It’s the very theme of the book!
It’s also important to note that conservatism isn’t the opposite of socialism. All of the big isms, socialism, Marxism, fascism exist on a scale that lead to totalitarian rule. Conservatism, at least in America, is about conserving the principles laid down by the founders…freedom supported by the rule of law. Conservatives live to restrain encraochments on the republican system that best guards against ism creep. Conservatives live to preserve the morals and values necessary to create a strong, healthy, and well educated society. It’s a difficult path…how much easier it is to sell the public on the promise of freebies over self reliance!
Of course it is also worth noting that those promises of free stuff are now killing our economy with entitlements requiring more and more of budgets and oppressing the golden goose into lethargy.
Did anyone hear the news from CBO this morning that rather than the original projection of $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law, Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade.
The socialist model DOES NOT WORK…CANNOT WORK!!!
Pie Guevara: “By 1943 Orwell had, evidently, pretty much given up his quest for the elusive “Democratic Socialism” when he wrote, “The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.”
In short, people are simply too Orwellian to make Eric Arthur Blair’s grand vision of Democratic Socialism actually work…”
Pie, did you write this yourself, or did you copy and paste it from another article? I’m just curious as to what the source is.
The argument itself does not provide nearly enough evidence to support the point it’s trying to prove. The quote from Orwell does nothing to show that he had “pretty much given up” on the idea of Democratic Socialism. Absent other context for the quote or other evidence in which he distances himself from socialism more explicitly, there is no way that that is a solid interpretation of that quote. It only works that way if you go into it assuming that Orwell is referring to socialists when he describes those who try “to imagine perfection.” No evidence is provided to show that this is his meaning.
In fact, your second reply provides plenty of evidence of Orwell’s commitment to socialism throughout his life. But the conclusion that he gave up on socialism later in life is just pulled out of thin air, with only one vague quote used to justify it.
Perhaps the article you got this information from provides better evidence of Orwell’s conversion from socialism than you have provided here. Perhaps there’s more evidence of his distancing himself from socialism later on in life that isn’t mentioned by this article. I’ll do a little more research on this subject to see, but as for now, your argument just isn’t convincing.
Also, for the record: I studied “Animal Farm” in college. As far as I can remember, the professor never mentioned that Orwell was a socialist. I think she was more into reader-response criticism, she wasn’t so much concerned with authorial intent. I didn’t learn that Orwell was a socialist until later, from my own reading.
Tina: “Chris, socialism as he understood is difficult to define without more than this one statement. Having observed first hand the horrors of totalitarian governments one could expect that anything better would be something to favor.”
I’m not saying Orwell was right. It just bugs me when people use a famous person’s work to make arguments that said famous person would totally disagree with. Take Glenn Beck’s Martin Luther King Day rally, for instance. Beck has mocked and demonized so many of the things MLK Jr. advocated for, he had no right to use his name to promote his own agenda. It’s just tacky, and it reveals either ignorance or manipulation on the part of the person doing it.
“We value all individuals; we see them as human and seek and support laws that punsih based on the same and without prejudice. (blind justice) Laws that punish based on group affiliation will eventually make another group (the jews, the bankers) other.”
Tina, hate crime laws don’t punish people based on group affiliation, they punish people based on MOTIVE. We have many laws that punish people differently based on their motive for the crime. We have penalties for conspiracy, we have different punishments for murder as a crime of passion or as a premeditated act…hate crime laws don’t bring us any closer to the “thought police” then these actions, in my opinion.
Hate crime laws one area where I agree with Jack. I think of hate crimes as just another form of terrorism. They are politically motivated acts that are designed to send a message to certain social groups, to intimidate them. If Bob kills Ryan because Ryan is Jewish, than Bob is a danger to all Jews; chances are very high that he will strike again. If he kills Ryan because Ryan stole something from him, there is also a chance that Bob will kill someone else in the future, but the chance isn’t at large.
Would you find hate crime laws more acceptable if they were simply merged with existing laws about terrorism? Personally, I think that would be a great compromise.
Tina, I am willing to accept that your opinion of Rush is based on your experience listening to the man. I strongly disagree with your opinions, but I was inspired by what Peggy wrote in another thread about civility. One of the most crucial aspects of a civil debate, I think, is not questioning the motives of the person you’re talking to. I have accused you in the past of supporting Rush simply because of political reasons. But I will concede that perhaps you have seen a side of Rush that I have not. I do ask that you pay me the same respect by assuming that my disdain for Rush is also based on my personal experience of listening to the man, and not on political affiliation.
I also appreciate your words about Ellen. Here is the statement from the website of One Million Moms about why they chose to boycott her:
“Recently JC Penney announced that comedian Ellen Degeneres will be the company’s new spokesperson. Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families. More sales will be lost than gained unless they replace their spokesperson quickly. Unless JC Penney decides to be neutral in the culture war then their brand transformation will be unsuccessful.
Their marketing strategy is to help families shop and receive a good value for their money. Degeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there. The small percentage of customers they are attempting to satisfy will not offset their loss in sales.
JC Penney has made a poor decision and must correct their mistake fast to retain loyal customers and not turn away potential new, conservative shoppers with the company’s new vision.
“Importantly, we share the same fundamental values as Ellen,” said Michael Francis, president of J.C. Penney Company in a press statement. “At JC Penney, we couldn’t think of a better partner to help us put the fun back into the retail experience. Moving forward, we’ll be focused on being in sync with the rhythm of our customers’ lives and operating in a ‘Fair and Square’ manner that is rooted in integrity, simplicity and respect. We’re thrilled that she’s joining our team to help convey the exciting transformation under way.”
“They have an incredible vision for the future and are completely re-inventing themselves to become America’s favorite store,” said DeGeneres in a press statement.
By jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon, JC Penney is attempting to gain a new target market and in the process will lose customers with traditional values that have been faithful to them over all these years.”
http://onemillionmoms.com/IssueDetail.asp?id=436
So I think my initial summation of their reasons for the boycott was quite accurate. They don’t want Ellen to represent JC Penny because she’s not part of the right kind of family. Despite their nominal status as a “family organization,” One Million Moms does not support all families. They actively campaign against certain types of families that they don’t like. They are in favor of further marginalizing the types of families that they believe are inferior. They want those types of families to go unmentioned and disrespected. The same is true of all who operate under the umbrella of the so-called “American Family Association.” This association frequently attempts to use censorship to target people for political disagreements.
But I am glad to see that most conservatives, including yourself, do not agree with OMM on this issue. Even Bill O’Reilly lectured a spokesperson for the group on his show, telling them that what they were doing was un-American. Despite our differences on gay marriage, Tina, I am glad we can agree that they should have left Ellen alone.
As for boycotting as a tactic in general, keep in mind that the bus boycotts helped kick off the Civil Rights movement, and the tactic served the movement very well. I think it’s fair to argue whether such boycotts are necessary today, but I think we should respect the fact that this tactic has been useful and necessary in the past.
Pie, I searched for a while to see if I could find anything that supported your claim that Orwell had “pretty much given up” on Democratic Socialism later in his life, and I couldn’t find anything. Even Conservapedia, which portrays Orwell as leaning slightly toward the right as he got older, still admits that “he remained a fervent social democrat until his death.”
http://conservapedia.com/George_Orwell#cite_note-1
Earlier you accused me of “pissing on Orwell” with “nonsense” for saying that he was a socialist who advocated socialism in his writing. You suggested that I got this information from college “indoctrinators,” and that if I actually read Orwell’s letters I would see that he was not, in fact, a socialist. You said that my depiction of Orwell’s political views was a result of my gullibility and partisan loyalty, saying that I would “believe anything” as long as it supports my own “political agenda.”
Worst of all, you said all this after I had already provided a direct quote from Orwell in which he explicitly said that he wrote in favor of socialism for most of his writing career.
I think you owe me an apology, Pie. More importantly, you owe it to yourself to make sure you have all the information before accusing others of being uninformed. Your first reply did not have the intended effect of making me look ignorant; instead, you made yourself look ignorant on the subject, and too easily willing to get angry about an issue that you did not have all the facts about.
Chris: “Take Glenn Beck’s Martin Luther King Day rally, for instance.”
Glenn Becks rally was not a “Martin Luther King Rally”. It was a “Restoring Honor Rally” that was held at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. His choice of date sparked controversy when those on the left who think they own the man, the day, the sentiment, the high ground, took umbridge at his holding it on that day. MLK’s neice was there as were religious figures of all races and creeds. It was designed to be a nonpolitical charitable event but the left wanted to change the subject and use it as a way to discredit and destroy. (sigh)
“…hate crime laws don’t punish people based on group affiliation, they punish people based on MOTIVE.”
Certainly in the case of murder or assault motives such as jealousy, money, and revenge are cited to prove guilt. These require evidence in court to demonstrate the likelyhood that the crime could be committed by the accused. The court might look at what they believe is the mental state of the person accused…but the crime is still murder or assault. When we decide that hate is a crime we are venturing into the realm of thought. I don’t want to go there. I don’t want to give the state the ability to prosecute for having thoughts. The precedent offers a big opportunity for abuse of power.
Heinous crimes have always garnered stronger sentences. And judges have a lot of leeway, in announcing sentencing, to be explicit with respect to what has made the crime heinous. The media should make a big deal out of the remarks a judge makes in such ccases. Rape is always a terrible crime but rape of a girl by a drunk student isn’t nearly as egregious as repeated rape of a kidnapped child who is then buried alive, for instance. We as a society agree that a distinction must be made and an appropriate punishment is necessary. Women, men, gays, lesbians, whites, blacks, orientals, Latino’s, religious people, the handicapped, the homeless, children…are all human beings. An assault on any one of us is an assault on us all and should be treated in the same manner under the law. (blind justice)
“If Bob kills Ryan because Ryan is Jewish, than Bob is a danger to all Jews; chances are very high that he will strike again. If he kills Ryan because Ryan stole something from him, there is also a chance that Bob will kill someone else in the future, but the chance isn’t at large.”
In either case a murder is a murder and each case should be litigated on the circumstances…but isn’t that like attempting to punish someone now for what he might do in the future? I don’t think that’s a good way to create justice or the sense that we are all equal under the law. Surely every effort should be made to discourage crimes motivated by hate. But I think that is best done by having a justice system that is blind and a citizenry well schooled in the notion of equal rights (not special rights). After 1965 many blacks exchanged oppression as a group for the expectation of special treatment as a group. They have held on to past oppression as an excuse to force special rights. Neither gives them full equal status in my book. In America, the blacks I know, or am aware of like the economist Dr. Walter Williams, seem most satisfied, self-assured and confident of their equality and individuality than those who are continuously saying they are victims of descrimination. A lot of them come out of the military where equality is practiced spectacularly in bootcamp!
“Would you find hate crime laws more acceptable if they were simply merged with existing laws about terrorism? Personally, I think that would be a great compromise.”
I’d consider it but in the end the message has to be that we as a society stand together with respect of all human beings and against those who seek to do harm or murder to any human being. Simply insisting as humans on civility is how we got to a higher plane of civility, it happened, in part, because we deviated from that path. We must stand together and insist that the law cannot be breached for any reason without consequence and that when we are accused we will be judged equally under the law.
“I do ask that you pay me the same respect by assuming that my disdain for Rush is also based on my personal experience of listening to the man, and not on political affiliation.”
I would be happy to! I never expected you to change your mind about Rush or your political affiliation. I mostly find discussing what others have said that is offensive, just because it may be offensive, a fruitless endeavor.
“The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there.”
This type of statement is my first clue to dismiss what is being said. None of us speaks for everyone. I find women who think they speak for all women equally ridiculous…A reason to refer to hard core feminists as “nags” to absurdly make a point about their absurd proclamations and demands ; )
“keep in mind that the bus boycotts helped kick off the Civil Rights movement, and the tactic served the movement very well…I think we should respect the fact that this tactic has been useful and necessary in the past.”
I have the greatest respect for this movement to right a human wrong and complete what had been started a century before. I have nothing but the deepest respect for the many men and women who bravely stood in defiance of the descrimination they were experiencing. I don’t think the Rush boycott or the Ellen boycott are similar. They are, in fact, attempts to create decrimination and oppression. JC Penney has the right to pick whatever spokesman they want and those women don’t have to personally shop at JC Penney if they are offended by the choice…or they can write a letter for heaven’s sake. Calling for a national boycott is an attempt to rob another of his freedom of speech and association. Same with the Rush boycott.
Chris, Tina is right about Beck’s Restoring Honor rally and MLK’s niece. Please read the whole article below from the Christian Science Monotor. To long to copy it all here.
=========
Glenn Beck 8/28 rally: It’s a matter of honor
Dr. Alveda King the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., explains why she’s speaking at the Glenn Beck 8/28 rally in Washington this Saturday.
Symbols of liberty:
Americans are hungry to reclaim the symbols of our liberty, hard won by an unlikely group of outnumbered, outgunned, underfunded patriots determined not to live in servitude to the British Empire. If we want to sing the national anthem at a memorial to the man who led this fledgling nation out of slavery, and made my people free, we should be able to send our voices soaring to the heavens.
Glenn Becks Rally to Restore Honor this Saturday will give us that chance, and thats why I feel its important for me to be there.
Before the words were out of Mr. Becks mouth announcing the Aug. 28 rally, The New York Times noted that it would be at the same place and 47 years to the day since my Uncle Martin gave his I Have a Dream Speech. When asked why he chose that date in particular, Beck said he had not realized its significance, but in thinking about it, he saw it is an auspicious day to rally for the honor of the American people. He has said, and hes right, that Martin Luther King didnt speak only for African-Americans. He spoke for all Americans, and his words still ring true.
Other groups are planning rallies and demonstrations in Washington that day, and freedom of speech gives them the right to do so and to criticize me for not jumping on their bandwagon. But Uncle Martins legacy is big enough to go around.
A rally about character, not politics:
Though critics see it as partisan, Becks rally is not a political event, per se. Instead, it is designed to be a refreshing exercise of freedom of speech.
The rally will be a celebration of who we are as a nation and a chance to stop for a moment, reflect, reorganize, and re-energize. Its a chance to think about character; both our character as a nation and our character as individuals. ….
When I join Beck and all gathered at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, I will talk about my Uncle Martin and the America he envisioned. I will talk about honor and character and sacrifice. I will be joined by those who represent the diversity of the human race.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0826/Glenn-Beck-8-28-rally-It-s-a-matter-of-honor