On the floor of the Wisconsin assembly, a Democrat threatened a Republican, obscenely. The Democrat was a man named Gordon Hintz; the Republican was a woman named Michelle Litjens. He pointed his finger at her and shouted, “You’re f***ing dead!” He did not use asterisks.
When Republican congressman Joe Wilson called out to President Obama “You lie,” the opinion-making class (for lack of a better term) said that we all had to engage in deep soul searching about civility. Maybe we can spend a second on this little episode in Wisconsin? And the larger episode in Wisconsin?
Advertisement
No one likes a conservative who gripes about media bias, but here I go: Do you think that, if the shouting man had been a Republican and the target of his obscene threat had been a Democratic woman, this story would be a teensy-weensy bit bigger, nationally, than it is?
I think . . .
I’m thinking that, if a Republican man pointed his finger at a Democratic woman in a legislative chamber and shouted, “You’re f***ing dead!” he would be on the cover of Time or Newsweek, or both. He would be famous. A sample headline: “The Angry Right: Is America Itself Threatened?”
Okay, get ready for the ho-hum: Chinese authorities have tortured another Falun Gong practitioner to death. I know, stifle your yawns. A man named Pei Yangqing was picked up in September, for the crime of telling some people about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in general. He lasted until February 20. Then he expired.
As this report tells us, “Pei had previously been detained multiple times for practicing Falun Gong, the longest stint being 75 days. While in detention, he was subjected to severe torture, including being whipped with barbed wire and shackled such that his feet were chained to his handcuffed wrists, causing excruciating pain to the point that he lost consciousness.”
You know what we should do? We should put on a lavish state dinner for the boss of the Chinese Communist Party at the White House, and we should have Lang Lang play musical tributes to this glorious party. Yeah, that’s what we should do . . .
Speaking of glorious Communist parties: Alan P. Gross, the American aid worker, has been held by the Cuban dictatorship for a year and three months. Jesse Jackson has volunteered to go win his release. He told the Associated Press, “I am not making a legal case. I am making a humanitarian plea, a moral appeal. I hope that Raúl and the governing officials see the advantage of letting him go. Every time a prisoner is let go, it opens the door for increased dialogue and possibilities.”
The point, as far as I can tell, is not that it’s wrong to hold an innocent man hostage and prisoner. The point is that there may be an “advantage” to “letting him go.” And don’t you love the phrase “Raúl and the governing officials”? Such sweet language, to describe the brutes of a dictatorship, holding a people in subjection.
There is also this article by the reverend — “reverend”! — himself, which begins, “I appeal to His Excellency President Raul Castro to release Mr. Alan P. Gross on humanitarian grounds.” I did not want to read after “His Excellency President,” but I did. What is excellent about a totalitarian dictator (or even the brother and frontman of the real totalitarian dictator)? Why is this dictator, or frontman, a “president”?
Anyway, Jackson said, “With the assistance of the Catholic Church, you rightly released several Cuban dissidents to Spain last year and I commend you for your courage in doing a difficult but moral thing.”
If you know what that means, you are a better Jackson decoder than I am.
You may recall what the “reverend” shouted on a trip to Cuba some years ago. “Viva Fidel Castro! Viva Che Guevara!” Bill Buckley asked Jackson, on television, whether, when he wished long life to the dictator, he meant, at the same time, to wish short life to his prisoners. (A short life, given the brutality of the Cuban gulag, could be better.)
If Jesse Jackson’s sucking up to the dictatorship, and the dictatorship’s sense of PR, springs Alan Gross, I would be all for it. One must be extremely pragmatic in these matters. What counts is the man’s release. I felt the same way about Goodman and Syria. Remember when the Assad dictatorship made a gift of that American airman to Jackson? That was in the early 1980s. The Gipper said, “You can’t argue with results.”
Some conservatives burned — and they had a point — but Reagan was right.
(Incidentally, the brave Robert O. Goodman was black. There was race involved in what Syria and Jackson were doing, as there so often is in life.)
I wonder if Jackson would consider making a cause out of Dr. Óscar Elías Biscet. He is the Afro-Cuban physician and democracy leader who has been in the Castros’ dungeons for a very long time. His models are Gandhi and Martin Luther King. George W. Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom (of course). (Biscet, somehow, didn’t show up to accept.)
Do you think Jackson would ever take an interest in him? That would surprise me. I think Jackson’s — and the American Left’s — attachment to, and affection for, the Communist dictatorship in Cuba is simply too great.
Let's ignore the usual double standards of NOW and the ACLU. Let's not dwell on the fact that this would be being reported differently if an R said this about a Senate Democrat. Let's put aside the National "cry for civility" that we all know is just Democrat for "don't criticize us."
What concerns me is what actually happened. Post Tucson, we heard how Representatives heightened security awareness and proposed new anti-gun legislation. You never knew what ideologue may take issue with what you've done.
There is already a gathering of such idealists working themselves to a froth in Madison. Now a Congressional Bully, Gordon Hintz, issues this threat. A threat to a woman. A threat designed to intimidate. A threat that appears to fit the FBI's definition of a Hate Crime. A threat just begging to be acted upon by some nut who, perhaps, needed just a nudge to lose it.
The Good Lord Willing, no harm will befall this woman, or anyone. It is my understanding that she reported this to her Leadership. I would have hoped they'd have acted a bit more overtly in a protective response for Michelle Litjens.
Obama is alot of things, but he never apologized for America (that's a myth), he isn't "pro-abortion" (who is "pro-abortion? Everyone get an abortion!)he's pro choice, and he supports Israel while seeking to hold them accountable for the aid they receive by furthering the peace process and trying to prevent illegal expansions.
Smither - nice try - start over. You obviously haven't been reading his speeches very closely.
He is an apologist, and he is anti-Israel, who has been wheeling and dealing with essentially itself for the past 20 years while the Palestinians can't even get to first base when we give them a 85 ft head start.
To your abortion comment however, I can only say do not judge what anyone says about abortion, look at what they do. On that basis Obama's viewpoint is quite clear. From his dreadful actions in Illinois to now. He is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is just a disguise to make the unthinkable less odious.
Since the elder Castro played baseball, perhaps we can propose a trade. I suggest we swap Mr Jackson and two leftists to be named by that regime, we will take Mr Biscet and any other dissident they care to toss in.
I was planning on commenting on "not talking trains". Then I read Smithersjones comments and changed my mind.
Obama has apologized. When you talk about how you are changing things and it will get better (talking foreign policy) and you are saying it in a foreign country then you are apologizing! Things that you can say here in the States are totally inappropriate when overseas. Politics are supposed to stop at the water's edge. You can say what you plan on doing but when you constantly refer to your predecessor, you are apologizing.
Obama is obviously pro-abortion. Look at his record in IL (Infant Born Alive Protection Act). He is supposedly a Constitutional Scholar. If he was, he would know that there is no right in the Constitution to abortion. Even worse, he's black and should know that Planned Parenthood is all about "getting rid of undesirables. They have been very successful in getting rid of black babies for years! Pro-choice to a liberal means you get a choice as long as the choice is an abortion! They have the same view on freedom of speech. Say anything you want to as long as they agree with it. If you want proof, reference the article above and watch the actions of the left in Wisconsin, on all levels, not just the protesters. When you don't correct someone you are lending tacit approval to what they say (hence the reason I changed the sublect of my comments).
Israel is supposed to ask permission to build houses for their citizens? Give me a break. Why does Israel have to be the one that gives up territory/lifestyle for "peace"? Does Hamas request permission to launch missiles or suicide bombers? The only way peace will ever be obtained is by allowing Israel to take out the bad guys. Israel isn't the problem, they just want to be left alone. They aren't the ones bent on conquest. Take off the blinders and see.
Smithers is setting up a straw man. By pretending that terms like "pro-abortion" and "apologize" mean something other than what we all know they mean, he is then able to refute the proposition that those terms apply to Obama.
“It is often said that anti-Israeli feeling is growing in the West because Israel does not, despite its claims, live by Western values. I sometimes wonder if the opposite is the case: Israel, because of the constant threat to its existence, reminds us of the high cost of defending our freedoms. And that, to Western wishful thinkers, is intensely irritating.”
My only disagreement with this quote is that I don’t “sometimes” wonder if the opposite is the case.
I love the anecdotes about the Greats admiring each other's work. When it comes to Haydn and Mozart, I just can't help but think about Salieri in "Amadeus". He would be one of those "second-rate" persons who wanted a "fifth-rate colleague" and was stuck knowing and working with one of the greatest composers of all time.
I also think of the modern, popular, artists. Are there any friendships akin to the ones above? Are there any pop-singers who recognize greatness enough to praise it publicly? Or has "second-rate"-ness taken over?
I think Bulldog's point about Israel is interesting. The questions is whether it is in America's interest (and presumably Israel's) interest to have peace with the Palestinians. If the answer is "no" then I suppose expansion is a-ok, regardless of UN treaties and the like. But if we are seeking the end of violence in Israel then pressuring Israel to comply with their obligations regarding settlements is an appropriate action from the Obama administration. Either Israel finds a way to co-exist or Israel becomes apartheid South Africa.
When he was in South America on official business for the first time as President, Obama was at a public event with Chavez and Manuel Noriega.
Chavez gave obama a book that was an anti-American screed, for which Obama thanked him and shook his hand. In response to Noriega's anti-American statements, Obama stated "I wasn't President when any of those things happened."
Couple that with his speeches in Berlin and Cairo, and we have an apologist. We KNOW FOR A FACT Obama doesn't like this country one bit, because he sees fit to "fundamentally transform" it. If he liked the country as is, it wouldn't need to be fundamentally remade.
In voting against a bill that would have protected the babies born after failed abortion attempts, Obama's position was that, when an abortion fails and the baby is born alive, the Dr. should be free to TRY AGAIN! Not only is that pro-abortion, it's SICKENING!
Obama is actually in favor of infanticide. At least, he's willing to cast votes in favor of infanticide, so as to gain ultimate street cred with the socialist left.
He's an anti-American apologist and a champion of infanticide, as sure as he is from Hawaii.
Remember, as Obama himself has told us in his two full-length autobiographies before age 50 (!!):
Barack Obama is a man who has progressed well into adulthood with an incomplete sense of self-identity, and struggled forming his self-identity until he immersed himself in the philosophies of others.
His administration is a case study in the twisted game of "LEAD THE FOLLOWER"!
I usually don't weigh in on the abortion debate for various reasons, but I would like to mention one of Obama's quotes. I don't have the specific words at hand, but it was something to the effect that he wouldn't want one of his daughters "punished" by having a baby before she wanted one.
I understand how someone can be pro-choice, but I cannot understand someone who views a baby as punishment.
I heard about this incident from "MSM" non Fox New TV sources and the comment was roundly condemned. It's been widely reported in print and online by all sorts of outlets (Slate, Time, MSNBC, Politico, The Washington Post, etc...). This is getting reported, the story just isn't catching on. The state of the union address was a more high profile event where more people were paying attention, also it happened on tape and could be replayed over and over, that helps to keep a story alive. Also, the extent to which the public has interest in following the minutiae of interpersonal interactions in this debate is limited outside of people with an unusual interest in politics (like the people who read National Review). This story is getting about as much play and traction as the initial report about Sarah Palin putting out the now infamous "crosshairs poster" and the complaints of targeted Democrats. The story died within a week because people didn't care that much until (in an unfortunate coincidence) Giffords was actually shot in the head. If This story was catching on with people the cable news networks would be making more of it because they want to get ratings. These news outlets want to make money, they are entertainment companies looking to sell toilet paper and insurance to their viewers, that is all the "MSM" is. Any conspiracy theory about these outlets having a deeply held political motivation that gets in the way of making money is ridiculously starry eyed.
I think the argument is that, while having a baby is not a punishment, not being allowed to not have a baby is a punishment, forced on all women by pro-life laws.
It is part of the pro-choice argument that pro-life people don't like women.
I liked Maestro Maazel's remark that at the highest level there is only mutual respect and admiration among artists. If only it were true. While Johannes Brahms, who had a notoriously acid tongue, expressed only admiration for Richard Wagner as a musician—to the point of reproving friends, such as the critic Eduard Hanslick, who denigrated him—Wagner offered nothing but vitriol and ridicule to Brahms. "A czardas player" is a sample of his invective. Another example is Benjamin Britten, who once said of Brahms. that he occasionally listened to him as a reminder of how bad he was. Someone—I forget who— once said, more truly it seems to me, that at a certain level of development, an artist is interested in no one's work but his own.
And now the Liberals threaten lynching Thomas?
Perhaps Congress needs to look into this or appoint a Special Prosecutor, somehow I don't think Eric Holder will protect Justice Thomas as if he were z Black Panther.
With regard to Che Guevara, a few weeks ago, Time magazine cited the famed Cuban revolutionary as one of the twenty-five most influential political icons world-wide of the last one hundred years. Influential, yes. Universally revered? That’s another story. If you live in Miami, for example, the name of Che Guevara is anathema. But if you are in the working class in Buenos Aires (or anywhere else in South America) he is a saint.
This man, who was central to Fidel Castro’s overthrow of Fulgencio Batista’s government in 1959 and who is the iconic figure of the Cuban revolution to this day (Fidel notwithstanding) is the beneficiary of an enormous glut of written biography and documentary film, plus one very distinguished dramatic film (The Motorcycle Diaries by Walter Salles). He is also the subject of whole libraries-ful of political journalism and commentary.
Politically there’s little subtlety, depending upon which side of the spectrum you prefer. For very many, Guevara remains a Stalinist totalitarian and a murderer. For countless others, he is the hero who stood up to the United States, denounced that country on the world stage, and paid for it with his life in a dirt-floor schoolroom in Bolivia in 1967. The Catholic Church condemns him to this day. Those who love him would, to this day, sanctify him.
But there could be a middle ground, a place where Che Guevara’s heart exists and is available for thoughtful examination. It’s a ground that, in Guevara’s case, has not much been populated, though. Fiction at its best is a vehicle for exposing the human heart. My favorite kind is that in which the hero goes from an emotional state of not-knowing to a state of knowledge, the novel itself being the description of that emotional discovery. Fiction has done this so often, and with such distinction, that many of the greatest examples of soulful exploration ever lie in the pages of novels, from Don Quixote to Dickens to Don Delillo and everywhere in between.
A recent survey on Wikipedia of fiction about Che Guevara, though, lists only a dozen books. Some have a right-wing political bent (William F. Buckley’s See You Later Alligator) and they can be disregarded right away because of that. The left-wing political stuff as well. With regard to both of these, political fiction is really political opinion done up with stylistic ribbons and bows, and not much else. Others of these twelve novels are just not very good. Jay Cantor’s fine The Death of Che Guevara goes a very long way toward exploring the emotional life of this very violent man. But for the most part, there’s little in fiction about Guevara that matters.
This despite the fact that there are many contemporary novels about other great historical figures that are very distinguished indeed: Gabriel García Marquéz’s The General in His Labyrinth about Simón Bolívar, Tomas Eloy Martinez’s The Perón Novel about Juan Domingo Perón and Hilary Mantel’s critically-acclaimed Wolf Hall, about Thomas Cromwell, to name a few. From these we know that it can be done.
For good or ill, Che Guevara deserves fine fiction. So, where are the novelists of this man’s soul, and when do we get to see their books?
(Terence Clarke’s most recent book, A Kiss For Señor Guevara, was published this July. www.akissforsenorguevara.com)
I’m thinking that, if a Republican man pointed his finger at a Democratic woman in a legislative chamber and shouted, “You’re f***ing dead!” he would be on the cover of Time or Newsweek, or both. He would be famous. A sample headline: “The Angry Right: Is America Itself Threatened?”
