The Hammer, The Sickle, The Shoe?

In regard to recent tossing of footwear:

If an American press corps member threw a clipboard, let’s make it metal, at the Iranian Prime Minister the conservatives of our nation would decry for his immediate release from detainment on the grounds of being a political prisoner held against the will of the public.

There is a big, bad logic flaw in this latest conservative blab:

“Under Saddam, this guy’s held would have rolled after he threw any footwear.”

Who is getting the treatment here? The Iraqi Prime Minister had no shoes thrown at him, as far I can recall. Bush is not and never was the ruler of Iraq. If Bush were to visit like that under Saddam’s rule then they probably would build a statue of the reporter holding hands with good old Saddam. If he threw one at Saddam then it comes to if the international eye was on him or not. If not then this idea might work and we would never hear about him in the first place, making in the entire issue moot. But if every country could pick up that feed then even someone like a dictator would have some troubles. Saddam still might off the guy, in this reckless scenario, but the worldwide media would go right ahead with reporting that he was executed for his actions under a dictator and this man would die a hero. All thanks to the “disgusting liberal media hounds.”

There is also an obvious logic flaw in non-violent American individuals who promote throwing things in protest:

Political statement in our culture is our issue and they have theirs in Iraq. If you don’t like the idea of the image of ‘America the Bully’ then try to do yourself what we teach our children to do. Use your words.

I understand the sentiment but anytime I write about things like clipboards and shoes and the slapping of lips, I am using examples or failed attempts at comedy. The test comes not in what we say but what we do and I actually walk away from fights in the real world.

No security blanket of the web.

I’m not perfect. Just last night I was illustrating the point that if someone had some serious beef with me to just bring it and let’s be done with it. I‘m not down to hold on to that garbage and nonsense. In a strange way, that sums up my foreign policy stance.

The classic true pacifist-test is would you join the Army or other military org if there was mainland invasion or the ‘a real WWIII?’ God forbid.

The bottom line is that I have the luxury of being a ideological pacifist because I don’t have to fight for food or survival on a day to day basis. Or at least the last time I went outside I wasn’t dodging bullets and secret police squads.

I think the concept of spreading democracy where there is none is great, in principal, but a nation that holds recent debates over the results of its own elections in the highest court are hardly fit to bring democracy to anyone.

Let alone at the end of a gun. Let alone there was no preceding invasion of another nation state to drive us into the war. Let alone we allowed our proud military to mix with guns-for-hire.

Savage Radio, Savage Language, Savage Consequences

For those unaware of Michael Savage and his San Francisco based talk radio show, I do not recommend you listen to this show.
Here’s why I bring it up at all:

The first inclination, and the standard political response, is to decry calling another person any form of trash or saying that they have no worth. But I can assure that Michael Savage does nothing but spew hateful trash and provides nothing of worth to society with his radio program.

Words and their definitions do matter, but each individual is allowed to draw their own opinions on what those definitions interpret as and how they fit into our language. Savage is entitled to express his opinion over competing definitions.

Just as I will now say that scum who promote one-sided agendas and wrap themselves in the flag whenever challenged are one of the biggest threats to political discourse and continued freedom of choice in our leaders.

Next the issue of mental illness and the seriousness of accurate diagnosis:

The need to explain in rational terms the vast divergence of political thought is not some fresh issue that Savage stumbled upon and wrote a book about from empirical evidence and under credible peer review.

His views are his and not supported by any empirical facts whatsoever.

It is a pure mystery of humanity that he and I can read the same Constitution and case rulings, then come to such utterly different conclusions. Anyone such as he who claims to have solved such a mystery must immediately be called into suspect classifications in terms of credibility and reliability.

Our entire government is designed around facilitating a bipartisan exchange of concepts between significant parties. The political parties hold the general popular beliefs of the people and represent the ideological and social shifts in America. albeit poorly.

To claim that any one group (liberal, conservative, federalist, libertarian, socialist, communitarian, anarchist, etc.) a thinking or set of beliefs that originates from chemical imbalances in the brain, without insurmountable and overwhelming proof is tantamount to encouraging the spread of tyranny into our American electoral process.

The concept in question also devises a situation in which all information or perspectives outside of a status-quo are rejected off-hand without consideration. Were this mentality to spread into our private industry, political lobbying and daily culture we would cease to live in the Land of the Free and contort into the Land of the Afraid, the Land of the Ignorant.

Freedom of speech means Savage can and should stay on the air until America finally laughs him off the radio stage, or he just quits. If his on-air commentary and sentiments are at all honest I would quit my job and move to some undisclosed island were I him.

He obviously despises about sixty-percent of the country, for one reason or another.

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to listen to the Savage program daily. I never once agreed in political terms with him but, like so many radio conservatives, I agree on certain social issues. For example, both Eric and Michael think high school kids should get a job and earn a paycheck instead of a phone bill each month.

The point being that finding common ground is not that hard, if only you look.

These days I cannot withstand the bile coming from Savage for more than short bursts so perhaps there are many more little things I could flower-up my comments on this man with and I am admittedly ignorant of.

The fact that he wants Muslim-Americans persecuted for pursuing freedom of religion, desires free thinking youth silenced or jailed for protests and holds the illogical belief that police departments and government officials never ever make mistakes so we can just get rid of all those defense attorneys out there leaves me little sympathy for someone with whom I would otherwise enjoy logically debating national issues.

Men like him pick a target and don’t care if it doesn’t make sense or hurts the nation or degrades our freedom. Destroying bipartisan hopes with mad clatter and hate rambling.

Like his sentiment that crime, gang violence, low-moral conduct and drug abuse begins at home with the parents, the nature of wasted time in the courts also starts at home. The personal choice to sue as a first resort or sue to pay the bills comes from parents who fail to instill a strong sense of personal responsibility in their children.

The people who file these lawsuits and the lawyers arguing them instead of refusing them are at the core of this blame. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what Savage proposes we should do in regards to the legal / civil litigation issues in this country.

The greatest trouble I see with this loose cannon on the air is that his rhetoric will only drive people into the fringe camps of the media-government censorship legislation advocates, like the Fairness Doctrine advocates. Most people do not share in my faith in the intelligence of the American people and believe that someone so vile would surely be a danger to us all. This is not so.

There are times, in my personal opinion, that Savage crosses that line of clear and present danger to the public as a whole. But it is highly unlikely any court would support my ideas on this. If you personally ever think he or any person actually posed a threat, in something you actually heard them say, then call the station.

Savage takes calls, I’ll give him that. He knows that it is not his format but the people’s format.

Let it never be said I do not take some efforts to be fair about my subjects.