Jack's hed and sub as submitted to me were:
Stewart Strikes Obama
The President's drone assassination of American citizens has at least one liberal critic in Jon Stewart
Rick, I'm not sure the author is responsible for the title which implies there's only one. His website has this column under "Jon Stewart Strikes Obama on Drones." It may be the editors' call what's written at the top of the page. Mat, maybe you can tell us?
Anyway, it says "prominent." I'd say Stewart fits that description. But outside of MSNBC viewers, I doubt many people would know who Maddow and Hayes are.
Liberals in general are silent on war measures under Obama just like the Teahadists were silent on deficits, debt and government spending under W. We're all fucked up. Let's move on.
Where are the massive protests in the streets and the massive uproar from both chambers of Congress that we had during the Bush years? Its remarkably quiet in the anti-war circles now that the bulk of the left has just shut their mouths and sat on their thumbs.
There are plenty of liberals questioning this practice. You obviously don't watch Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes among others.
Here ya go, Fish.
When Tony Perkins talks about the SPLC, he sounds just like you talking about Jack. And, he's just as wrong.
No, but you could clarify your definition of violence.
I agree that it wasn't the work of one person, but every movement needs a figurehead I guess. David Halberstam's The Children is an excellent book about the heroics of people like James Lawson and the kids from Nashville. I came away with tremendous respect for people like John Lewis who endured the the violence of the Freedom Rides and Bloody Sunday, the march to Selma. His courage, bravery and commitment to peaceful protesting still make me weep. He was here in Charleston last month and unfortunately I was unable to see him speak.
Paulius, must I explain to you the meaning of the word war?
"It was not self defense or the threat of self defense that brought about a change in the culture of the 1960s."
It was also not the work of just one person, yet our culture deifies the individual over the collective, so that's what we're taught in schools and why we have holidays.
So, there's equality inside a broken system. Hmm. That sounds familiar. I think I read that somewhere else this morning.....
Oh. So, writing a column that says you can't be too extreme when defending your rights is support for violence, but actually ordering drone strikes that blow people up at weddings isn't? And I'm the one that needs word meanings explained? Hmm. I know what these two words mean: twisted logic.
Paulius, I'm done trying to explain the meaning of words to you.
Mat, re Stalin, Paulius made a weak attempt to tie you to support for Stalin's policies and facetiously called for you to repudiate them. It was a poor attempt at analogy by him and a poor attempt at humor by me.
As far as Malcolm, I think we're on the same page, however I don't happen to agree with him, and believe history proved him wrong. It was not self defense or the threat of self defense that brought about a change in the culture of the 1960s.
Yes, I believe it is our collective responsibility to make sure we do nothing to encourage or legitimize the most fanatical fringes of society who have always been prone toward over-reaction. Unfortunately, some still feel that it serves their political goals to set loose the dogs.
Re Obama's bombing of civilians, that has been a part of warfare for a long time. Dresden and Hiroshima are the classic modern examples of indiscriminate bombing. I find it difficult to categorize drone attacks as support for violence. It's simply war until 2014.
Well, you could have actually posted the next bit from the wikidiki:
"We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."
This is not necessarily a call to violence but it still fits within Malcolm's worldview (at that time) that meeting violence with non-violence was, on the whole, counter-productive.
Most of that, though, was made moot following his break with the NOI and his Hajj. When he returned to the States, he was most definitely changed by his experience overseas and expressed interest in meeting with MLK.
Funny, they both died soon after that, didn't they?
I don't know what you're getting at with Stalin, though.
Now, the funny part is that if we take Malcolm's words above and incorrectly attribute them to Patrick Henry or some other Founding Firebrand, then everyone would stand up and applaud and say, "America, Fuck Yea" and that would be the end of it.
The trick is, and this is something that I think you're trying to get to, that now - over 200 years into our collective history as a nation, we've got to get past not just the violent rhetoric of our past, but also of our present.
Writing you can't be too extreme is NOT a call to violence. It is NOT a call to arms. Also, it is NOT in any way shape or form an excuse to kill people, especially ones that have nothing to do with one's cause (ie OKC). Saying that it is is not only a stretch; it's an insult to the City Paper, because if its editors felt that was an actual call for violence I'm sure they never would've printed it!
But that's not even the biggest stretch you've made. That honor goes to this: "I'm sure it was simply coincidence that this crazy person had a gun and a bunker and picked this time to try to kidnap someone. And it was simply coincidence that I told you this was going to happen 3 weeks ago." Yes, Nostradamus, you really callled that one. Did I miss something? Did the NRA call for kidnapping children to protest gun control?
And you know what's funny? That you, he/she of such righteous indignation against Jack's words, have written the following: "You people make me sick. Which of you on this thread is the next Timothy McVeigh? You are paranoid and delusional and you deserve to be stripped of your rights and waterboarded as home grown terrorists. I hope the Obama administration uses it's Patriot Act powers to hunt you down in the night and whisk you away indefinitely to a secret detention facility in a nameless country. This is a very dangerous and irresponsible fire you guys are building and it needs to be snuffed out."
I guess if some left wing crazy whisks me away to be waterboarded and then snuffed out, we'll all know Fish Pimp's rhetoric is to blame. He hasn't repudiated it yet, so I guess that means he'd support it.
By any means necessary is a translation of a phrase coined by the French intellectual Jean Paul Sartre in his play Dirty Hands. It entered the popular culture through a speech given by Malcolm X in the last year of his life. It is generally considered to leave open all available tactics for the desired ends, including violence; however, the “necessary” qualifier adds a caveat—if violence is not necessary, then presumably, it should not be used.
I personally feel that extremism goes beyond what is necessary by definition. Whatever your feeling, it certainly is much closer to an apt analogy than any of Paulius' other attempts. But maybe you are pro gulag? Should I be calling for you to repudiate Stalin?
"Malcolm X is a much better example of an individual specifically promoting violence to further his agenda."
No, Malcolm X advocated against non-violence in the face of racial discrimination and threats from both public and private sources. I can't recall a single thing about him ever calling for armed revolution, merely that people should be able to defend themselves when the government cannot or will not.
Clearly, you are incapable or unwilling to see any nuance. I understand that you were simply choosing someone on the left an blaming them for the actions of a leftwing nutjob. That's why your analogies suck. I'm not randomly choosing Jack and assigning him blame because he's pro-gun. Malcolm X is a much better example of an individual specifically promoting violence to further his agenda. Of course, it would be much easier to justify his call to arms based on the systematic violence and repression waged on the black community at that time. Gun nuts have no such justification, they are perfectly capable of full participation in the crafting of laws and regulations involving their rights and should not have to resort to violence to achieve their ends.
Again, you are unwilling to see what is clearly written by Jack. I point out that he wrote, CAN NEVER BE TOO EXTREME, and you try to ignore the plain meaning of the words or attribute them to someone else. Now you fall back into your horrible analogies in which to simply link two people on the left and claim it's the same thing as what I've said. You really don't understand how analogies work. At this point I'm wasting my breathe trying to define "inciting violence" to you. I'm sure it was simply coincidence that this crazy person had a gun and a bunker and picked this time to try to kidnap someone. And it was simply coincidence that I told you this was going to happen 3 weeks ago. Just like it was coincidence that the militia groups began attacking federal authorities after Wayne La Pierre called them "jack-booted thugs" in the early 90's. The party of personal responsibility is hardly ever willing to take personal responsibility for anything.
Are you really that literal? I'm using Maddow as an example of someone on the left that disagrees with the FRC on gay marriage. I could've used any number of liberals in the media who disagree with them. I was trying to illustrate a point for you. Don't like Maddow? Take your pick of anyone else; it doesn't matter. Your point is Jack is somehow responsible for what happened in Alabama, and your point is ridiculous. I was trying to show you how ridiculous it is by making the same point about somoene on the left and using the violence at the FRC.
How about this instead? Malcolm X..."by any means necessary"...Black Panther violence. Do you blame their acts on Malcolm X? I certainly don't.
In response to your comment on the other thread (because I don't feel like jumping back and forth anymore), it's you that's putting words in Jack's mouth. A clear call to arms? Seriously? That's not what I read. And, no, it's not up to Jack to repudiate anyone else. Do we call for mat to repudiate Stalin? He probably agrees with him on some things, but I don't foolishly assume mat's pro gulag. Try not taking columns that simply call for less government and protection of gun rights and making a great illogical leap into assuming that's a call for domestic terrorism.
Also, it's another great leap to assume the guy in Alabama's actions were motivated by politics. Seems more like pedophilia to me, but we don't know everything yet. Was the guy some kind of right wing survivalist? Sounds like it, but both sides have thier crazies. Do right wing survivalists regularly kidnap kids for political statments? Nope.
Your analogy is ludicrous. Maddow didn't ever write or say that all tactics used against the FRC were justifiable. Hunter, in contrast, is making the case that these violent tactics (indeed ANY tactics) are justifiable in defense of 2nd amendment rights. Therefore he shares responsibility for the tactics of the most extreme, whereas Maddow does not.
I think we've gotten to the point where we have the same arguments in both threads, so let's just keep it here now.
My point is that you can't take what someone writes and assign blame to them for another's actions. The guy in Alabama...I don't blame what he read on the web or who he listened to on talk radio. I blame him. By the way, he kidnapped a kid. Doesn't the motivation in that seem more likely to be pedophilia, not politics? He didn't go shoot up city hall or kidnap the mayor.
Blaming Jack for what he did would be like blaming Rachel Maddow for Floyd Corkins shooting the guard at the Family Research Council. It's preposterous in both cases.
There are two huge differences there. Hitler achieved his goals because he gained control of the government and expanded it's power (kind of how the Left always wants to see government grow). Also, Hitler called for violence against Jews. Who has Jack called for violence against? He's said not to budge on gun rights, like we shouldn't have budged on 4th Amendment rights. He hasn't called for assassinations of any politicians that promote gun control. I'm sure he'd like to see them voted out, but not killed.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper