It's interesting to hear what some people ares aying about the Terri Schiavo case.
Rush Limbaugh says that this is an issue about the right to life, that if her right to live is critical, that if she is allowed to be killed because she is "inconvenient", what happens when you or I become inconvenient?
George Nory on Coast to Coast AM says that he believes that good will prevail, and he challenges Michael Schiavo to take a lie detector test. If he passes, George says he'll back off and stop talking about the case. If Michael fails the lie detector test, he should turn guardianship of Terri to her parents. (I actually think this is a good idea...)
Various people, from the religious, to the frantic have spoken up, asking for various government officials or judges to intervene on Terri's behalf. Meanwhile, themore radical among these people have written protest signs and internet posts saying that Judge George Greer, Michael Schiavo, Florida governor Jeb Bush, and President George Bush should be shot, or have their feeding tubes removed. This morning there are news reports of a man from Illinois being arrested for breaking into a sporting goods store. He wanted to steal a gun to "rescue" Terri Schiavo.
"The red states should have their feeding tubes removed," one internet post read. The response to this was quick: "The red states feed the blue states, you moron!"
It got so bad that in the speech announcing the state's latest evidence in the case, Florida governor Jeb Bush asked that people supporting the Schindlers act peacefully and without violence.
I find it interesting that the people who are are all for putting the feeding tube back into Terri Schiavo don't blink an eye when people start talking about shooting people on the other side.
Dr. Dean Adell has a radio show on the local radio station on weekday mornings. He addressed the religious angle when a woman called into the show and accused Michael Schiavo basically of murdering Terri and that God would want her to keep living.
Adell countered first by saying that not everyone believes in one God, in this case the caller's God...whatever version of God that is. He pointed out that people in other parts of the world have differing views on God and their religious beliefs, and we don't impose our beliefs on them.
Finally, Adell ended his comments by saying that most religious people believe in miracles, so why not now? Remove the feeding tubes, and pray that God provides a miracle that allows Terri Schiavo to feed herself.
The reason this case concerns me is because of the precedents that the congressional intervention *does* set. It says that you may not have the right to decide how you check out of this world.
And let's be clear about something here. No one heard of Terri Schiavo much before this latest round of court battles. Outside of the malpractice money that Michael Schiavo won, the family is not rich by any means...so the only reason this is in the news is because of the government's interest.
By overriding the judicial branch of the state of Florida, which had said that Michael Schiavo had the right to have his wife's feeding tube removed, the federal government provided the legal precedent for interfering with any other case of a persistent vegetative state that comes down the pike.
The decision on how I will live, or IF I will live in some sort of injured state is up to me to decide. Quite simply, while Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, they have no business whatsoever intruding themselves in a matter that families all across this country have to deal with each day...whether to allow a family member to be released from a torturous life.
As of the latest news report from the radio, the Schindlers and the state of Florida are going back to the Court of Appeals with their latest allegation saying that Terri is suffering from abuse, and asking that the courts allow the state to take custody of Terri Schiavo.
I hope the court case falls flat, as the most recent court cases have done. I am not hoping that Terri Schiavo dies sooner rather than later. I am however a supporter of state's rights, and I am a person who advocates that the federal government stay out of places where it has no business being.
I must say that I have scored points with my liberal friends for my opinion. They expected me to agree with Rush because I agree with Rush on most things. However, just because I agree with Rush on most issues does not mean I agree with him 100% on everything. When my guys are wrong, I say it, and I stand up for my opinions.
However, I am not taking my position based on whether TerriSchiavo should live or die, and I don't care whether I am scoring points with my liberal friends. My opinion is based on the fact that I would not want the federal government to be interfering in that kind of decision if *I* had to make it. It's none of my business how you make that decision should it come to that, and you have no right butting into my decision should I have to make it...and according to the polls, the majority of Americans agree with me on this.
It is interesting to see my "guys" being so wrong on this issue.The people who are usually for the rights of the individual, the people who are usually against federal control, and the people who are suspicious of congressional action are the ones supporting federal power being involved in the case of whether a person should be allowed to die as they wanted to.
While the Republicans have been accused of bringing their morality into this issue and forcing God down our throats in all of their speeches on this subject, the congressional Democrats have been accused of being overly concerned about the legalities. YES! Exactly! In the meantime, today we've heard that Jeb Bush nearly called out the troops and had them march to the hospice, but was stopped by Judge Greer. I am not sure whether that actually happened...I doubt it, but I would not be surprised.
Not only that, but the US Congress, Jeb Bush, Rush Limbaugh, George Nory, and the Schindlers have all been ignoring the fact that in Quinlan case, in the Finn case, and in other cases of people in the same state as Terri Schiavo, whose circumstances were brought before the US courts, the courts have sided with the right for a wife or family to remove feeding tubes from patients. If people want to get this changed, they need to pass a law that prohibits the removal of feeding tubes from people who are disabled in some way...but the US Congress has not done that up until now, and they did not do it in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Meanwhile, on CNN, one person said that if illegal action is required to save Terri Schiavo, and if it creates a constitutional crisis in Florida, so be it.
Rush Limbaugh says that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of courts, and he is right...but which side is abusing the court system in this matter? I don't see Michael Schiavo repeatedly filing petitions to everyone up to the Supreme Court.
I don't see Michael Schiavo robbing a sporting goods store to get a gun so he can "rescue" Terri Schiavo. I don't see him pleading with the governor of the state to use strongarm tactics if necessary to force the insertion of her feeding tube.
All Michael Schiavo wants to do is let his wife die in peace.
---
John B.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case is Over
It appears quite certain that Terri Schiavo will finally be allowed to die...this after a fifteen-year ordeal where she has been in a persistent vegetative state. This case has been at various times in the spotlight of the national news and the center of the nation's attention ever since Terri Schiavosuffered a heart attack that kept her brain deprived of oxygen for several minutes.
Let me be clear on this.
If there was any way at all that Terri Schiavo could be fully restored to a vibrant life with little or no ill-effect, I would have it done,and I assume that a vast majority of the people in this country would as well. If Terri Schiavo could be restored to say...75%, or maybe even 50% of what constitutes as normal function, I would support that, and I am sure that most other people in this country would as well.
The case of Terri Schiavo is unfortunate, and I would be hard-pressed to wish such a fate on my worst enemies.
However, something has happened in this case.The Republican conservatives have started to act like liberal Democrats, and liberals actually make sense on this matter. I found myself agreeing with the syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer, which was scary, when you consider that she is usually a shill for the Liberal Left.
There are a number of myths in this case that need to be addressed:
MYTH: Terri Schiavo is NOT in a persistent vegetativestate...she is "minimally conscious".
This latest opinion was offered by a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, who spent less than one hour viewing VIDEO of Terri Schiavo. He did not visit her, and he did not do a medical examination. Thus, Judge George Greer told the state and the Schindler family that there was no new evidence to go on that would allow for a case to be made.
Quite frankly, for all of the zeal that the governor of Florida has displayed in this case, you would think that if he was going to put forward this new "evidence", he would have made sure it was done RIGHT. The fact that no medical exam was done was just plain stupid. The state should have went in and did a full medical examination. This would have provided a fresh view on the condition of Terri Schiavo. It would have actually constituted new evidence had the results indicated a state of minimal consciousness, and it would have indicated any effects of the removal of the feeding tube.
However, when faced with the numerous opinions of the doctors who have been on this case for the past fifteen years, the state did a quick-and-dirty job, and it showed in the decision handed down by Judge George Greer.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli and therefore is not in a persistent vegetative state.
The problem here is that the Schindler family and the protestors who have been demonstrating outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is being cared for are taking their wishes, their hopes, and their fantasies, and they are projecting them onto Terri simply because she happens to move.
However, medical science does not take wishes, hopes, or fantasies into consideration when determining the state of a patient. Medical science also recognizes that even a person in a persistent vegetative state may move, they may blink their eyes, they may speak nothingness. Rather than being any sort of coherent response to her surroundings, these are simply Terri's reflexes reacting. The accident that put her into the state she is in took away any higher brain functioning.
Terri Schiavo no longer thinks, and she no longer feels...anything. This means that even with the feeding tube removed, Terri Schiavo is not feeling anything. She is not feeling the euphoria that some doctors say happens with starvation, and she is not feeling the pain that the Schindlers and their supporters say she feels.
MYTH: The Schiavo case did not set legal precedent when the US Congress took up the issue.
In fact, ANYTHING brought up in Congress can serve as a precedent. All one would have to do is say "Remember what we did in the Schiavo bill..." and the precedent would be referenced.
Now, did Congress have the power and authority to allow the Schiavo case to move to the federal level? Yes. Congress has the constitutional right to decide where the federal courts have jurisdiction. However, for them to say that they are limiting the law to Terri Schiavo so that it is not a precedent is ludicrous.
There are precedents in this topic. Karen Ann Quinlan overdosed on drugs and ended up in a persistent vegetative state. At that time, there were no laws on the books governing who has authority to guide treatment when the patient could not do so. The family went to court and asked that they be given permission to remove the feeding tube from Karen Ann Quinlan. The courts agreed, and the precedent that we have operated under up until now was laid down.
An associated myth is that the US Congress passed a law demanding that the Schiavo case be reheard from the beginning. Nope! Congress does NOT have that right. They can say that a certain case can be heard in federal courts, but the US Congress can not come in and dictate court action.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo has had her rights violated, or has not had her day in court.
Actually, the Schiavo case has lasted basically over the past fifteen years, from the case of malpractice against the doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that led to her injury, to all of the fights over her care...this is the third time that her feeding tube hasbeen removed. There are over 22 cases in local, district, or federal court. She has had three petitions to the Supreme Court on her behalf. (As of Saturday, March 26, there have been at least 26 seperate court cases filed with the various courts, and that may not be counting the decisions handed down today.)
MYTH: We really don't know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this situation because we only have Michael Schiavo to tell us.
Actually, the reason the case was upheld in the court of Judge George Greer was because Terri Schiavo not only told her husband, but two other friends.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die.
I believe that people on both sides, both the Schindlers, and Michael Schiavo, the politicians of both political stripes, and even the people on talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh and George Nory are operating in amoral way. I believe that they are doing what they think is morally right.
However, just because people believe they are doing the right thing, this does not mean that they are correct.
MYTH: People were arrested because they were trying to bring water toTerri Schiavo.
Wrong. The hospice and the surrounding grounds are private property. The protestors were arrested because the hospice did not want them near the building, where they may disturb the other residents, or disrupt the operations of the facility. When the protestors tried to bring water to Terri Schiavo, the hospice was within its rights to have these people picked up.
Having addressed some of the myths surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, I will go on in the next article to explain why this case is important to you.
---
John B.
Let me be clear on this.
If there was any way at all that Terri Schiavo could be fully restored to a vibrant life with little or no ill-effect, I would have it done,and I assume that a vast majority of the people in this country would as well. If Terri Schiavo could be restored to say...75%, or maybe even 50% of what constitutes as normal function, I would support that, and I am sure that most other people in this country would as well.
The case of Terri Schiavo is unfortunate, and I would be hard-pressed to wish such a fate on my worst enemies.
However, something has happened in this case.The Republican conservatives have started to act like liberal Democrats, and liberals actually make sense on this matter. I found myself agreeing with the syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer, which was scary, when you consider that she is usually a shill for the Liberal Left.
There are a number of myths in this case that need to be addressed:
MYTH: Terri Schiavo is NOT in a persistent vegetativestate...she is "minimally conscious".
This latest opinion was offered by a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, who spent less than one hour viewing VIDEO of Terri Schiavo. He did not visit her, and he did not do a medical examination. Thus, Judge George Greer told the state and the Schindler family that there was no new evidence to go on that would allow for a case to be made.
Quite frankly, for all of the zeal that the governor of Florida has displayed in this case, you would think that if he was going to put forward this new "evidence", he would have made sure it was done RIGHT. The fact that no medical exam was done was just plain stupid. The state should have went in and did a full medical examination. This would have provided a fresh view on the condition of Terri Schiavo. It would have actually constituted new evidence had the results indicated a state of minimal consciousness, and it would have indicated any effects of the removal of the feeding tube.
However, when faced with the numerous opinions of the doctors who have been on this case for the past fifteen years, the state did a quick-and-dirty job, and it showed in the decision handed down by Judge George Greer.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli and therefore is not in a persistent vegetative state.
The problem here is that the Schindler family and the protestors who have been demonstrating outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is being cared for are taking their wishes, their hopes, and their fantasies, and they are projecting them onto Terri simply because she happens to move.
However, medical science does not take wishes, hopes, or fantasies into consideration when determining the state of a patient. Medical science also recognizes that even a person in a persistent vegetative state may move, they may blink their eyes, they may speak nothingness. Rather than being any sort of coherent response to her surroundings, these are simply Terri's reflexes reacting. The accident that put her into the state she is in took away any higher brain functioning.
Terri Schiavo no longer thinks, and she no longer feels...anything. This means that even with the feeding tube removed, Terri Schiavo is not feeling anything. She is not feeling the euphoria that some doctors say happens with starvation, and she is not feeling the pain that the Schindlers and their supporters say she feels.
MYTH: The Schiavo case did not set legal precedent when the US Congress took up the issue.
In fact, ANYTHING brought up in Congress can serve as a precedent. All one would have to do is say "Remember what we did in the Schiavo bill..." and the precedent would be referenced.
Now, did Congress have the power and authority to allow the Schiavo case to move to the federal level? Yes. Congress has the constitutional right to decide where the federal courts have jurisdiction. However, for them to say that they are limiting the law to Terri Schiavo so that it is not a precedent is ludicrous.
There are precedents in this topic. Karen Ann Quinlan overdosed on drugs and ended up in a persistent vegetative state. At that time, there were no laws on the books governing who has authority to guide treatment when the patient could not do so. The family went to court and asked that they be given permission to remove the feeding tube from Karen Ann Quinlan. The courts agreed, and the precedent that we have operated under up until now was laid down.
An associated myth is that the US Congress passed a law demanding that the Schiavo case be reheard from the beginning. Nope! Congress does NOT have that right. They can say that a certain case can be heard in federal courts, but the US Congress can not come in and dictate court action.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo has had her rights violated, or has not had her day in court.
Actually, the Schiavo case has lasted basically over the past fifteen years, from the case of malpractice against the doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that led to her injury, to all of the fights over her care...this is the third time that her feeding tube hasbeen removed. There are over 22 cases in local, district, or federal court. She has had three petitions to the Supreme Court on her behalf. (As of Saturday, March 26, there have been at least 26 seperate court cases filed with the various courts, and that may not be counting the decisions handed down today.)
MYTH: We really don't know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this situation because we only have Michael Schiavo to tell us.
Actually, the reason the case was upheld in the court of Judge George Greer was because Terri Schiavo not only told her husband, but two other friends.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die.
I believe that people on both sides, both the Schindlers, and Michael Schiavo, the politicians of both political stripes, and even the people on talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh and George Nory are operating in amoral way. I believe that they are doing what they think is morally right.
However, just because people believe they are doing the right thing, this does not mean that they are correct.
MYTH: People were arrested because they were trying to bring water toTerri Schiavo.
Wrong. The hospice and the surrounding grounds are private property. The protestors were arrested because the hospice did not want them near the building, where they may disturb the other residents, or disrupt the operations of the facility. When the protestors tried to bring water to Terri Schiavo, the hospice was within its rights to have these people picked up.
Having addressed some of the myths surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, I will go on in the next article to explain why this case is important to you.
---
John B.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
The Continuing Saga of Ward Churchill
^.^
I imagine somewhere that I am breaking some code of conduct that says that if you want someone or something to go away, simply stop paying attention to it. It seems to work on zits, television ads, and the streetlght at 2nd and University that seems content with regulating the passage of invisible cars...whatever the color of the light, you're usually pretty safe walking across this intersection...
So, by all accounts, I should ignore the continuous ravings of CU professor Ward Churchill and he will go away.
Well, if you've been following my blog-world up to this point, you have learned that ignoring the controversial is not about to happen here.
See, three things are happening that are keeping the story of Ward "Whacko" Churchill alive.
- He keeps appearing in public venues. He recently attended a speech in Washington or Oregon despite the fact that the university there didn't want him to show up. He also made a guest appearance on Bil lMaher's HBO show, and true to form, Maher almost wet his pants trying to worship Churchill as if he were standing in the presence of the Messiah.
- A far larger event in this story is about to come to a close, if media reports are correct. In the aftermath of the initial controversy over Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment, the CU Board is looking into whether or not Churchill's writings contain academic fallacy. If they do, Churchill could be fired...it's actually a long process, but there would be a huge amount of movement toward getting that process started if the man's teachings are found to be total BS...
- And perhaps the biggest event so far...I received a reply to my first article on the subject! Yes, since you come here to read about me and my opinions on matters of importance, you also get to know what I think about the notes I get from people...please note that I maintain my creative policy of trying to sprinkle historic, economic, political, or cultural truth when answering notes from people who avidly hate me with every fiber of their being...the better to inspire and educate you with, my friends...
And now, to Rachel S. and her comments...
Rachel says:
"However, most of the claims he's made, which you are now questioning, are highly controversial. If some historians are telling one side of the story, and some are telling another side, there is bound to be some dispute about "the facts." After all, history is told by the victor, and Churchill is trying to tell the other side of the story."
Well, there are two things wrong with this statement. The first is the supposition that I am questioning claims made by Churchill that are merely controversial. Nope! The claims I am contesting are also being questioned by scholars in the field of Native American studies. These people have facts which say that what Churchill is claiming as genocidal policies on the part of the US military during the time in question is WRONG.
The second thing wrong with Rachel's statement is the idea that history is written by the victors. Nope again! While history may become clouded by stories, foggy memories, and sinister agendas that may combine to create a myth that gets handed down, at the end of the day, just as the DNA strand forms the basis for an entire entity, history is made up of a series of truths. These are spread out on a series of levels...political, military, economic, cultural, and more...and when taken together, they form something rather important...they form a story of what really happened.
The whole "history is written by the victor" line reflects the fact that people telling the story of history often have agendas, such as Ward Churchill, who has marched at protests demonstrating against Columbus Day. When you add that to his statements about a supposed plan to wipe out the Native Americans through the use of disease-laden blankets, you begin to see an anti-American bias that quite frankly also explains his "little Eichmanns" comment.
A historical scientist learns to strip the biases of other people away from the historical fact and keeps his/her own biases away from the observations being made so that what comes from the work being done is as close to accurate as is possible.
I have no doubt that if Ward Churchill wanted to make himself to be a champion of the Native American, he could...there has been enough bad history between the Native Americans and those who later settled the lands formerly belonging to the indian tribes. No country's history is spotless, and no people can call themselves angels.
However, one of history's greatest admonishments for why it is relevant is the teaching of its lessons...because if we don't learn them, we will be forced to stay after class until we do...and history's lessons are often taught with a lot of bloodshed.
With that in mind, Ward Churchill does a dis-service to his students by filling their heads with false teachings...with history that did not happen, with slights against the Native Americans that never ocurred, and with slanders against innocent people whose only crime against humanity was getting up and going to work in New York City on one early Fall day in 2001.
Quite frankly, I know that the White Man has enough historic sin on his head. I don't need to carry extra burdens for things that never happened.
I will continue to follow the Churchill case in Boulder with the hope that not only justice for the students of Colorado University will be done, but also that justice for history will also be done.
John B.
I imagine somewhere that I am breaking some code of conduct that says that if you want someone or something to go away, simply stop paying attention to it. It seems to work on zits, television ads, and the streetlght at 2nd and University that seems content with regulating the passage of invisible cars...whatever the color of the light, you're usually pretty safe walking across this intersection...
So, by all accounts, I should ignore the continuous ravings of CU professor Ward Churchill and he will go away.
Well, if you've been following my blog-world up to this point, you have learned that ignoring the controversial is not about to happen here.
See, three things are happening that are keeping the story of Ward "Whacko" Churchill alive.
- He keeps appearing in public venues. He recently attended a speech in Washington or Oregon despite the fact that the university there didn't want him to show up. He also made a guest appearance on Bil lMaher's HBO show, and true to form, Maher almost wet his pants trying to worship Churchill as if he were standing in the presence of the Messiah.
- A far larger event in this story is about to come to a close, if media reports are correct. In the aftermath of the initial controversy over Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment, the CU Board is looking into whether or not Churchill's writings contain academic fallacy. If they do, Churchill could be fired...it's actually a long process, but there would be a huge amount of movement toward getting that process started if the man's teachings are found to be total BS...
- And perhaps the biggest event so far...I received a reply to my first article on the subject! Yes, since you come here to read about me and my opinions on matters of importance, you also get to know what I think about the notes I get from people...please note that I maintain my creative policy of trying to sprinkle historic, economic, political, or cultural truth when answering notes from people who avidly hate me with every fiber of their being...the better to inspire and educate you with, my friends...
And now, to Rachel S. and her comments...
Rachel says:
"However, most of the claims he's made, which you are now questioning, are highly controversial. If some historians are telling one side of the story, and some are telling another side, there is bound to be some dispute about "the facts." After all, history is told by the victor, and Churchill is trying to tell the other side of the story."
Well, there are two things wrong with this statement. The first is the supposition that I am questioning claims made by Churchill that are merely controversial. Nope! The claims I am contesting are also being questioned by scholars in the field of Native American studies. These people have facts which say that what Churchill is claiming as genocidal policies on the part of the US military during the time in question is WRONG.
The second thing wrong with Rachel's statement is the idea that history is written by the victors. Nope again! While history may become clouded by stories, foggy memories, and sinister agendas that may combine to create a myth that gets handed down, at the end of the day, just as the DNA strand forms the basis for an entire entity, history is made up of a series of truths. These are spread out on a series of levels...political, military, economic, cultural, and more...and when taken together, they form something rather important...they form a story of what really happened.
The whole "history is written by the victor" line reflects the fact that people telling the story of history often have agendas, such as Ward Churchill, who has marched at protests demonstrating against Columbus Day. When you add that to his statements about a supposed plan to wipe out the Native Americans through the use of disease-laden blankets, you begin to see an anti-American bias that quite frankly also explains his "little Eichmanns" comment.
A historical scientist learns to strip the biases of other people away from the historical fact and keeps his/her own biases away from the observations being made so that what comes from the work being done is as close to accurate as is possible.
I have no doubt that if Ward Churchill wanted to make himself to be a champion of the Native American, he could...there has been enough bad history between the Native Americans and those who later settled the lands formerly belonging to the indian tribes. No country's history is spotless, and no people can call themselves angels.
However, one of history's greatest admonishments for why it is relevant is the teaching of its lessons...because if we don't learn them, we will be forced to stay after class until we do...and history's lessons are often taught with a lot of bloodshed.
With that in mind, Ward Churchill does a dis-service to his students by filling their heads with false teachings...with history that did not happen, with slights against the Native Americans that never ocurred, and with slanders against innocent people whose only crime against humanity was getting up and going to work in New York City on one early Fall day in 2001.
Quite frankly, I know that the White Man has enough historic sin on his head. I don't need to carry extra burdens for things that never happened.
I will continue to follow the Churchill case in Boulder with the hope that not only justice for the students of Colorado University will be done, but also that justice for history will also be done.
John B.
The Peaceniks Strike Back
^.^
For this blog article, you will need a copy of the Imperial March, from"The Empire Strikes Back." If you have it, COOL! If not, just float back in fond memories of yesteryear when DarthVader would stride down the ramp from a shuttle, with all of the evil fanfare.
Yes, for while the forces of good, right, and justice continue onward with their mission, both on the international level, and here in the city of Laramie,Wyoming...while proud Americans stand up for the rights of people everywhere...including here at home to excercise their freedoms, even when those people are dead wrong in their opinions, and even as the foreign policies of the Bush administration continue to bear fruit in the form of blossoming democracies and cowering dictators...even as all of this happens, the liberals, the Democrat National Party, and the peaceniks continue to snipe fromthe shadows...
...and they whine a lot...
Taking you back to the battle over the SUFP protest that was not a protest against the speech last month by Ken Starr at the University of Wyoming, I received a letter from Lesley W, a member of SUFP, who in a very long-winded note proceeded to tell me how I was wrong, how SUFP had been most effective in getting their point across at the Starr speech, and recounting pretty much everything that SUFP even thought of doing from the dawn of the Revolutionary War right up to yesterday afternoon.
What I have just done is save you all some eye-strain by giving you the gist of Lesley's note, because our starting point for this article is in the reply to MY reply to Lesley W.
I responded to Lesley W. ... you can read my response in the comments to that particular blog article if you wish...and then I got the following reply from Willis:
"Pathetic.
It seems that it has become easy fodder for neo-con sympathizers to criticize the efforts of grassroots groups for being "ineffective." It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had. But then that's the luxury one has when sided with the winning team, right? Just keep nodding your head, chewing up the same political information that the rest of the righties are armed with, provide nothing in your opinions that might amount to authentic substance or insight, and go after the little people because they are concerned with making a statement against overwhelming odds... That seems to be the emerging American ethic, eh?
Keep up the good work. The status quo needs more noble people like you beating up on old ladies, hippies, and peaceniks.
Wondering, John, when did you choose to trade your suit and tie (and cowboy hat?) for a brown shirt?"
---
This note is just precious.
Willie here comes onto my blog talking tough, saying that I'm all hot air, providing you with nothing of substance or insight.
Yet what does he do?
When I read Willie's note, I do not hear someone taking my arguments about SUFP and providing some substantial or insightful arguments to combat my singular point, which was that by their inept handling of something as simple as a protest against a speech, SUFP proved that they are nothing more than a bunch of losers.
Rather than "Stand Up For Peace", SUFP should stand for Shut Up Freakin' Peaceniks.
Apparently Willie is well-versed in the fine liberal art of failing to practice what one preaches.
WIllie made some interesting comments, such as: "It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had."
If Willie had perhaps read my blog article, he would see that I followed the story of the Starr protest with quite a bit of interest. The only thing I didn't do was show up at the speech itself. For coverage of the event, I relied on the local newspapers, and they did a good job...then again, it's not like covering a speech is a hard task.
Nowhere do I say that it is my job to track down stories. I am not a reporter. I am an opinion guy. My job is to look at the news of the day, give you feedback based on the facts as I find them, and give you my opinions. If you don't like those opinions, find some other blog to read...but when I give you my opinions, they are based in fact, and often I try to teach
people about history, society, economics, or whatever other subject I slide into on that particular day.
However, rather than combat my fact-based opinions with some opinion of his own, Willie only seems interested in making snide attacks on people who endorse the Bush administration, support the war against terror, and trully believe that we are doing yeoman work in the Middle East.
The last few sentences of Willie's note are interesting. Why is it that if you are supporting liberal psychobabble, if you are speaking out against Republicans, or conservatives, if you are supporting the things that have made this country great and are willing to go into a public arena with comments to that effect, you are called aNazi?
Throughout all of this argument with Shaddup Freakin' Peaceniks, I have steadfastly stood by and defended their rights of free speech. This is even though I disagree with their ideas...this is even though I think their conspiracy-theory-laced BS is about as stupid and wrong-headed as you can get.
Despite all of that, they still have a right to wander around the Laramie area, spewing their propaganda, and pretending that they are relevant.
Yet, I dare to utter a word against the peaceniks, and I get attacked. The person that I run into that I know is a member of SUFP recently referred to me as a "whiney-mouthed Star Trek fan". (It is amazing what you can find on a person by running their email address through Google.)
I've twice been called a Nazi, and other verbal slings have been hurled my way.
The peacenuts can have all the free speech they want...but if you are a supporter of our efforts to take down the terrorist baddies, if you endorse our spreading of democracy over there so that the world is a much safer place, and if you don't think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the administration are the scum of the earth, apparently your rights are forfeit.
Not as long as I breathe air they aren't...
John B.
For this blog article, you will need a copy of the Imperial March, from"The Empire Strikes Back." If you have it, COOL! If not, just float back in fond memories of yesteryear when DarthVader would stride down the ramp from a shuttle, with all of the evil fanfare.
Yes, for while the forces of good, right, and justice continue onward with their mission, both on the international level, and here in the city of Laramie,Wyoming...while proud Americans stand up for the rights of people everywhere...including here at home to excercise their freedoms, even when those people are dead wrong in their opinions, and even as the foreign policies of the Bush administration continue to bear fruit in the form of blossoming democracies and cowering dictators...even as all of this happens, the liberals, the Democrat National Party, and the peaceniks continue to snipe fromthe shadows...
...and they whine a lot...
Taking you back to the battle over the SUFP protest that was not a protest against the speech last month by Ken Starr at the University of Wyoming, I received a letter from Lesley W, a member of SUFP, who in a very long-winded note proceeded to tell me how I was wrong, how SUFP had been most effective in getting their point across at the Starr speech, and recounting pretty much everything that SUFP even thought of doing from the dawn of the Revolutionary War right up to yesterday afternoon.
What I have just done is save you all some eye-strain by giving you the gist of Lesley's note, because our starting point for this article is in the reply to MY reply to Lesley W.
I responded to Lesley W. ... you can read my response in the comments to that particular blog article if you wish...and then I got the following reply from Willis:
"Pathetic.
It seems that it has become easy fodder for neo-con sympathizers to criticize the efforts of grassroots groups for being "ineffective." It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had. But then that's the luxury one has when sided with the winning team, right? Just keep nodding your head, chewing up the same political information that the rest of the righties are armed with, provide nothing in your opinions that might amount to authentic substance or insight, and go after the little people because they are concerned with making a statement against overwhelming odds... That seems to be the emerging American ethic, eh?
Keep up the good work. The status quo needs more noble people like you beating up on old ladies, hippies, and peaceniks.
Wondering, John, when did you choose to trade your suit and tie (and cowboy hat?) for a brown shirt?"
---
This note is just precious.
Willie here comes onto my blog talking tough, saying that I'm all hot air, providing you with nothing of substance or insight.
Yet what does he do?
When I read Willie's note, I do not hear someone taking my arguments about SUFP and providing some substantial or insightful arguments to combat my singular point, which was that by their inept handling of something as simple as a protest against a speech, SUFP proved that they are nothing more than a bunch of losers.
Rather than "Stand Up For Peace", SUFP should stand for Shut Up Freakin' Peaceniks.
Apparently Willie is well-versed in the fine liberal art of failing to practice what one preaches.
WIllie made some interesting comments, such as: "It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had."
If Willie had perhaps read my blog article, he would see that I followed the story of the Starr protest with quite a bit of interest. The only thing I didn't do was show up at the speech itself. For coverage of the event, I relied on the local newspapers, and they did a good job...then again, it's not like covering a speech is a hard task.
Nowhere do I say that it is my job to track down stories. I am not a reporter. I am an opinion guy. My job is to look at the news of the day, give you feedback based on the facts as I find them, and give you my opinions. If you don't like those opinions, find some other blog to read...but when I give you my opinions, they are based in fact, and often I try to teach
people about history, society, economics, or whatever other subject I slide into on that particular day.
However, rather than combat my fact-based opinions with some opinion of his own, Willie only seems interested in making snide attacks on people who endorse the Bush administration, support the war against terror, and trully believe that we are doing yeoman work in the Middle East.
The last few sentences of Willie's note are interesting. Why is it that if you are supporting liberal psychobabble, if you are speaking out against Republicans, or conservatives, if you are supporting the things that have made this country great and are willing to go into a public arena with comments to that effect, you are called aNazi?
Throughout all of this argument with Shaddup Freakin' Peaceniks, I have steadfastly stood by and defended their rights of free speech. This is even though I disagree with their ideas...this is even though I think their conspiracy-theory-laced BS is about as stupid and wrong-headed as you can get.
Despite all of that, they still have a right to wander around the Laramie area, spewing their propaganda, and pretending that they are relevant.
Yet, I dare to utter a word against the peaceniks, and I get attacked. The person that I run into that I know is a member of SUFP recently referred to me as a "whiney-mouthed Star Trek fan". (It is amazing what you can find on a person by running their email address through Google.)
I've twice been called a Nazi, and other verbal slings have been hurled my way.
The peacenuts can have all the free speech they want...but if you are a supporter of our efforts to take down the terrorist baddies, if you endorse our spreading of democracy over there so that the world is a much safer place, and if you don't think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the administration are the scum of the earth, apparently your rights are forfeit.
Not as long as I breathe air they aren't...
John B.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
A Tale of Two Protests, Part 3: The Emails
^.^
As I have said, I intend to give SUFP and its members their equal chance to express their opinions on this subject...especially since the subject is about THEM.
With that being said, here is a response, from Mr. Hanks (name obscurred for privacy purposes)
"I don't care how this Nazi sympathizer feels. We are at war with trash like him. He belongs in Leavenworth. Instead he will have a career as a corporate lawyer learning all the arts of force and fraud."
"For what it is worth, I was against the demonstration because I didn't think there would be enough interest or time. I would prefer a well planned demonstration demanding the abolition of the Republican party for years of treason and subversion. Then we don't get tied down to "celebrities".
*signed by Mr. Hanks*
---
Hmm. Perhaps Mr. Hanks should be on the lookout for a possible coronary, a brain explosion, or some other such thing. After all, Mr. Hanks and the rest of the members of SUFP say they are for "peace", yet he apparently is at war with "trash like (me)".
And I'm a NAZI... *grin* That's certainly original.
However, Mr. Hanks should perhaps take a step back, and re-evaluate what he said. After all, the "trash" I think he is referring to are a bunch of nihilistic Jihadists who don't think twice about killing anyone, be it Iraqi, American, or miscellaneous, man, woman, children, etc. They are led by men like Ayman al-Zarqawi(sp), and Osama bin-Laden...who are searching for the quickest way to take as many innocent Americans IN THIS COUNTRY off the face of the planet, not to mention any Americans or foreigners who might be "despoiling" their own lands.
I am merely a person using my own opinions, my philosophy, and the philosophies of like-minded people, and the lessons of history to write commentary on today's world, and the people who live there.
It's two different things, in my opinion...
John B.
PS: Please continue with the emails!
As I have said, I intend to give SUFP and its members their equal chance to express their opinions on this subject...especially since the subject is about THEM.
With that being said, here is a response, from Mr. Hanks (name obscurred for privacy purposes)
"I don't care how this Nazi sympathizer feels. We are at war with trash like him. He belongs in Leavenworth. Instead he will have a career as a corporate lawyer learning all the arts of force and fraud."
"For what it is worth, I was against the demonstration because I didn't think there would be enough interest or time. I would prefer a well planned demonstration demanding the abolition of the Republican party for years of treason and subversion. Then we don't get tied down to "celebrities".
*signed by Mr. Hanks*
---
Hmm. Perhaps Mr. Hanks should be on the lookout for a possible coronary, a brain explosion, or some other such thing. After all, Mr. Hanks and the rest of the members of SUFP say they are for "peace", yet he apparently is at war with "trash like (me)".
And I'm a NAZI... *grin* That's certainly original.
However, Mr. Hanks should perhaps take a step back, and re-evaluate what he said. After all, the "trash" I think he is referring to are a bunch of nihilistic Jihadists who don't think twice about killing anyone, be it Iraqi, American, or miscellaneous, man, woman, children, etc. They are led by men like Ayman al-Zarqawi(sp), and Osama bin-Laden...who are searching for the quickest way to take as many innocent Americans IN THIS COUNTRY off the face of the planet, not to mention any Americans or foreigners who might be "despoiling" their own lands.
I am merely a person using my own opinions, my philosophy, and the philosophies of like-minded people, and the lessons of history to write commentary on today's world, and the people who live there.
It's two different things, in my opinion...
John B.
PS: Please continue with the emails!
A Tale of Two Protests, Source Materials (emails)
^.^
Okay, so maybe I wasn't as polite as I thought...but here is my initial email, and the response it received...
---
^.^
Ok. A couple of things for you to consider...
First off, GET OVER IT! Clinton and impeachment were about FIVE YEARS ago, and you still insist on crying about it...
Second, if you don't have a permit to protest Mr.Starr, then university security can and probably WILL do something about it. Your rights of free speech do not mean that you can prevent the university from functioning in that area of the building, nor does itmean you can block the free speech rights of Ken Starr, or people who agree with him.Your rights of free speech also don't do you much good if you get hauled away from the area. Do yourselves a favor and apply for a permit.
John B.
Laramie, WY
---
Here is the response I got from Josh Thompson, a member of SUFP:
With all due respect:
(a) Clinton's impeachment proceedings concerned the obstruction of justice charge related to the Lewinsky investigation. These are the matters with which most Americans are very familiar, and will always be the subject of controversy regardless of how you feel about that... Why doesn't that right wing neocon cabal responsible for the replacement of the first independent counsel with Starr and Starr go after Bush for his obstruction of justice that potentially killed 3,000 Americans in blocking FBI and CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and others that may have prevented September 11 because of his family's unequivocally proven business relations with them through Carlysle and Arbusto? Or after his lies to the American people to justify the War on Iraq or about his relationship with Kenneth Lay? Which were more egregious, really? I'msorry, but the President is the moral compass of our children... What will my son do now that President Bush has so much more frequently and substantively lied to the American people on national television? LOL... I'm sorry, but I think it's important to point out all of the hypocrisy in regards to all of this wonderful right wing moralism... Next, a good number of people believe that Ken Starr abused the public trust and wasted tremendous taxpayer resources on what, prior to Lewinsky, were completely scurrilous charges and baseless allegations (from White Water to Flowers toTroopergate, there most certainly was a nefarious right wing cabal financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and others). Essentially, I'll never "just get over" the fact that Kenneth Starr wasted $30 million dollars on an investigation that was ultimately unable to prove the allegations and leaks Starr was frequently making to the media? I think Starr should be dis-barred, frankly. I think he violated his code of ethics in many ways...Yes, it may have happened five years ago, but that is irrelevant. What, to most of us, is relevant, is the fact that the mainstream corporate American news media was absolutely negligent in its coverage of these issues, and that because of the same, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious as to all of the reasons we disdain Starr's conduct. What is important is informing others. It appears clear in your reply that you do not fully understand Starr's conduct. I highly encourage you to attend our re-screening of The Hunting of the President that Friday evening and to watch for the details to be announced... It's free.
(b) I've had two potentially precedent setting First Amendment cases surrounding protest, and beg to differ with your interpretation of FirstAmendment case law. Don't worry; we're not stupid, and we will decide on a protest permit if we think in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both. But we do not need a protest permit to express our First Amendment rights on the grounds of a public state institution. Period. University security CANNOT do anything unless we are disruptive simply because we have not asked somebody for permission to do what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a vast body of case law guarantees us the right to do... And if they do, we will have legal observers and video cameras, and the University will be paying dearly for any illegal political repression, and such officers will be facing the consequences that contingent action will bring to them... We will ensure that our expression is well within the confines of current case law because none of us want to go to jail. But we will also ensure that law enforcement does not overstep their bounds and will ensure that all involved are well-educated as to what they can and cannot do... We are not having a parade, and a protest permit is not necessary, seriously...
(c) while you have the right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree; the College of Law and those who've brought Starr at public expense or the expense of law school students have had their opportunity to express themselves in extending the invitation and bringing him here, who is most clearly a very controversial partisan political operative; we have the right, and some might argue, the duty, as American citizens, to express ourselves in kind; you may disagree with the means of expression, but you cannot fundamentally disagree with our right to do so ourselves and publicly express that disagreement and work to educate others without being a fascist; I would never myself ever prescribe for you how and when and where you should exercise your rights guaranteed to you by the First Amendment; personally, I find that fundamentally un-American ; please extend us the same courtesy, or if you disagree with us, organize your own counter-protest; that's certainly your right...
---
My counter-protest is right here...in the pages of my own personal soapbox. However, I reserve for you the right to read this, and any of my blog articles and respond to them. I encourage the exchange of ideas and debate. In fact, your letter may inspire me to delve deeper into your insinuations. March may turn into a busy month for me...
John B.
Okay, so maybe I wasn't as polite as I thought...but here is my initial email, and the response it received...
---
^.^
Ok. A couple of things for you to consider...
First off, GET OVER IT! Clinton and impeachment were about FIVE YEARS ago, and you still insist on crying about it...
Second, if you don't have a permit to protest Mr.Starr, then university security can and probably WILL do something about it. Your rights of free speech do not mean that you can prevent the university from functioning in that area of the building, nor does itmean you can block the free speech rights of Ken Starr, or people who agree with him.Your rights of free speech also don't do you much good if you get hauled away from the area. Do yourselves a favor and apply for a permit.
John B.
Laramie, WY
---
Here is the response I got from Josh Thompson, a member of SUFP:
With all due respect:
(a) Clinton's impeachment proceedings concerned the obstruction of justice charge related to the Lewinsky investigation. These are the matters with which most Americans are very familiar, and will always be the subject of controversy regardless of how you feel about that... Why doesn't that right wing neocon cabal responsible for the replacement of the first independent counsel with Starr and Starr go after Bush for his obstruction of justice that potentially killed 3,000 Americans in blocking FBI and CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and others that may have prevented September 11 because of his family's unequivocally proven business relations with them through Carlysle and Arbusto? Or after his lies to the American people to justify the War on Iraq or about his relationship with Kenneth Lay? Which were more egregious, really? I'msorry, but the President is the moral compass of our children... What will my son do now that President Bush has so much more frequently and substantively lied to the American people on national television? LOL... I'm sorry, but I think it's important to point out all of the hypocrisy in regards to all of this wonderful right wing moralism... Next, a good number of people believe that Ken Starr abused the public trust and wasted tremendous taxpayer resources on what, prior to Lewinsky, were completely scurrilous charges and baseless allegations (from White Water to Flowers toTroopergate, there most certainly was a nefarious right wing cabal financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and others). Essentially, I'll never "just get over" the fact that Kenneth Starr wasted $30 million dollars on an investigation that was ultimately unable to prove the allegations and leaks Starr was frequently making to the media? I think Starr should be dis-barred, frankly. I think he violated his code of ethics in many ways...Yes, it may have happened five years ago, but that is irrelevant. What, to most of us, is relevant, is the fact that the mainstream corporate American news media was absolutely negligent in its coverage of these issues, and that because of the same, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious as to all of the reasons we disdain Starr's conduct. What is important is informing others. It appears clear in your reply that you do not fully understand Starr's conduct. I highly encourage you to attend our re-screening of The Hunting of the President that Friday evening and to watch for the details to be announced... It's free.
(b) I've had two potentially precedent setting First Amendment cases surrounding protest, and beg to differ with your interpretation of FirstAmendment case law. Don't worry; we're not stupid, and we will decide on a protest permit if we think in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both. But we do not need a protest permit to express our First Amendment rights on the grounds of a public state institution. Period. University security CANNOT do anything unless we are disruptive simply because we have not asked somebody for permission to do what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a vast body of case law guarantees us the right to do... And if they do, we will have legal observers and video cameras, and the University will be paying dearly for any illegal political repression, and such officers will be facing the consequences that contingent action will bring to them... We will ensure that our expression is well within the confines of current case law because none of us want to go to jail. But we will also ensure that law enforcement does not overstep their bounds and will ensure that all involved are well-educated as to what they can and cannot do... We are not having a parade, and a protest permit is not necessary, seriously...
(c) while you have the right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree; the College of Law and those who've brought Starr at public expense or the expense of law school students have had their opportunity to express themselves in extending the invitation and bringing him here, who is most clearly a very controversial partisan political operative; we have the right, and some might argue, the duty, as American citizens, to express ourselves in kind; you may disagree with the means of expression, but you cannot fundamentally disagree with our right to do so ourselves and publicly express that disagreement and work to educate others without being a fascist; I would never myself ever prescribe for you how and when and where you should exercise your rights guaranteed to you by the First Amendment; personally, I find that fundamentally un-American ; please extend us the same courtesy, or if you disagree with us, organize your own counter-protest; that's certainly your right...
---
My counter-protest is right here...in the pages of my own personal soapbox. However, I reserve for you the right to read this, and any of my blog articles and respond to them. I encourage the exchange of ideas and debate. In fact, your letter may inspire me to delve deeper into your insinuations. March may turn into a busy month for me...
John B.
A Tale of Two Protests
^.^
I'll start off this article by telling you that I dislike people who say they're going to do something, then fail to do it. Such inaction makes the person or group appear to be unreliable or ineffective, and one should question their word again in the future if they say they are going to do something.
This has turned out to be the case with Stand Up For Peace(SUFP), a local peacenik group here in Laramie, WY that decided to protest a recent speaking engagement at the University of Wyoming. The speaker in question was Kenneth Starr, currently the dean of School of Law at Pepperdine University, and former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and charges stemming from it, including lying under oath about sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. These charges resulted in impeachment proceedings, which resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but not his removal from office.
To set up my point, we have to go through the whole story of SUFP and Ken Starr.
SUFP announced that they were going to protest the Starr appearance on their listserv, although at the time, they didn't really know HOW they wanted to go about making a protest...they just knew they wanted to show up and make their presence known.
I was concerned...not because SUFP might interfere with Starr or his speech...I figured that even if they were standing around outside the doors with signs, it would still be a respectable demonstration, and an act of free speech...and let me be clear here that I support SUFP's rights to free speech...I never know when I may need someone to defend my own free speech rights...
I was concerned because I had recently seen a newspaper article about a group of Christians who had surrounded a gay pride get-together in a public park. While the Christians did not engage the crowd, those who approached and showed an interest in the Christians were given some words of encouragement from the Christians in their own Chirstian sort of way. Nothing anti-gay, just "Jesus loves you," "Jesus died for you," that sort of thing.
Police soon contacted the Christians and told them that they were demonstrating without a liscense. I believe at least one of the Christians was arrested for this incident.
With this in mind, I wrote to a couple of people in SUFP and told them that they should consider going to the university police and getting a permit. I also told them that I disagreed with their protest, and I asked why they couldn't get over the whole thing. It has been several years since the impeachment fight, and even I don't bother with anti-Clinton rhetoric much anymore.
I really should reprint the response I got from SUFP. It was a classic left-wing tirade about how SUFP didn't need a permit to engage in free speech, and how I was wrong, and blah blah.It was that letter that initially got my dander up and started the inspiration for this rant.
I will find the letter and reprint it here for you...
HOWEVER, as the time for the protest neared, publicity of the protest escalated, and it was printed in the university paper,which as most university rags, tends to be quite liberal-leaning.
Shortly before the day of the Starr speech, SUFP came up with a plan to come to the speech wearing blue dresses with a stain on them, a reference to the semen-stained blue dress that was made famous in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. I did what I could responsibly in opposition to the protest...I notified the college Republican group about the protest, and encouraged them to engage in some free speech of their own.
Then I sat back to watch the fireworks.
On Saturday, February 19, one day after the Starr speech, the local newspaper, the "Laramie Boomerang" had the following to say about the protests in their story on the speech...and the story ran on the front page of the paper...
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Please read that last paragraph again. It's kinda important.
So! It seems that for all their bluster about how they were going to SHOW Ken Starr, how they were going to make their voices heard, how they were going to use their rights of free speech and such...when it came down to show time, when it came time for SUFP to put their money where their mouth was, they failed miserably.
Let me re-state for the record:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
So much for wearing stained blue dresses.
Now, the story is not quite over. See, today I ran into one of the members of SUFP, and I politely asked her what happened to the protest,and I said that I had been expecting something more substantial.
Her response was that SUFP had in fact showed up for the speech, and had entered the venue as listeners, thus skirting around the need for a protest permit...who is going to arrest anyone because they are wearing a blue dress? However, the protestors apparently were scattered throughout the audience. My SUFP acquaintance believes that they made an effective statement against Republicans, the neocon-dominated Bush administration, and Ken Starr in particular.
But, once again, I bring you to the official eye-witness account of the speech:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Even if SUFP had stuck with the strategy of attending the speech wearing blue dresses, they should have stayed together as a single group...that way they would stand out visably, and that would have gotten them noticed.
Instead, they chose to spread out, and send a quiet message.
The message was so quiet that it was not noticed.
SUFP has thus proven that they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to putting on a protest. Rather than maximizing their effect and cleverly making their presence known in a respectful manner, they diluted themselves in a sea of suits, ties, and dresses of a multitude of colors.
SUFP let people down.
They are inept as a protest group, and I for one won't pay much attention to them again.
As if that weren't enough, my SUFP acquaintance apparently thought that I didn't have the right of free speech...just because I don't happen to share her (and SUFP's) liberal anti-Bush policies. She asked me why I didn't sign up to go to Iraq. The conversation wasn't pointing in that direction. We were not talking about the military,and we were not discussing any possibility of a draft (there is none). This just seemed to come out of nowhere. So, according to SUFP, if you believe in the Bush administration and what we are doing in Iraq, or if you perhaps believe in Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation, you should sign up to go to Iraq.
I would if I could. However, with my health, no armed force will take me. However, I should not have to sign up for military service simply because I have a point of view.
However, it was an excellent dodge. The real issue was SUFP, and how they can't put on an effective protest. They and their representatives certainly are good at dodging the issues though.
John B.
PS: I'll post the email I received from an SUFP representative as a seperate article...
I'll start off this article by telling you that I dislike people who say they're going to do something, then fail to do it. Such inaction makes the person or group appear to be unreliable or ineffective, and one should question their word again in the future if they say they are going to do something.
This has turned out to be the case with Stand Up For Peace(SUFP), a local peacenik group here in Laramie, WY that decided to protest a recent speaking engagement at the University of Wyoming. The speaker in question was Kenneth Starr, currently the dean of School of Law at Pepperdine University, and former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and charges stemming from it, including lying under oath about sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. These charges resulted in impeachment proceedings, which resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but not his removal from office.
To set up my point, we have to go through the whole story of SUFP and Ken Starr.
SUFP announced that they were going to protest the Starr appearance on their listserv, although at the time, they didn't really know HOW they wanted to go about making a protest...they just knew they wanted to show up and make their presence known.
I was concerned...not because SUFP might interfere with Starr or his speech...I figured that even if they were standing around outside the doors with signs, it would still be a respectable demonstration, and an act of free speech...and let me be clear here that I support SUFP's rights to free speech...I never know when I may need someone to defend my own free speech rights...
I was concerned because I had recently seen a newspaper article about a group of Christians who had surrounded a gay pride get-together in a public park. While the Christians did not engage the crowd, those who approached and showed an interest in the Christians were given some words of encouragement from the Christians in their own Chirstian sort of way. Nothing anti-gay, just "Jesus loves you," "Jesus died for you," that sort of thing.
Police soon contacted the Christians and told them that they were demonstrating without a liscense. I believe at least one of the Christians was arrested for this incident.
With this in mind, I wrote to a couple of people in SUFP and told them that they should consider going to the university police and getting a permit. I also told them that I disagreed with their protest, and I asked why they couldn't get over the whole thing. It has been several years since the impeachment fight, and even I don't bother with anti-Clinton rhetoric much anymore.
I really should reprint the response I got from SUFP. It was a classic left-wing tirade about how SUFP didn't need a permit to engage in free speech, and how I was wrong, and blah blah.It was that letter that initially got my dander up and started the inspiration for this rant.
I will find the letter and reprint it here for you...
HOWEVER, as the time for the protest neared, publicity of the protest escalated, and it was printed in the university paper,which as most university rags, tends to be quite liberal-leaning.
Shortly before the day of the Starr speech, SUFP came up with a plan to come to the speech wearing blue dresses with a stain on them, a reference to the semen-stained blue dress that was made famous in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. I did what I could responsibly in opposition to the protest...I notified the college Republican group about the protest, and encouraged them to engage in some free speech of their own.
Then I sat back to watch the fireworks.
On Saturday, February 19, one day after the Starr speech, the local newspaper, the "Laramie Boomerang" had the following to say about the protests in their story on the speech...and the story ran on the front page of the paper...
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Please read that last paragraph again. It's kinda important.
So! It seems that for all their bluster about how they were going to SHOW Ken Starr, how they were going to make their voices heard, how they were going to use their rights of free speech and such...when it came down to show time, when it came time for SUFP to put their money where their mouth was, they failed miserably.
Let me re-state for the record:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
So much for wearing stained blue dresses.
Now, the story is not quite over. See, today I ran into one of the members of SUFP, and I politely asked her what happened to the protest,and I said that I had been expecting something more substantial.
Her response was that SUFP had in fact showed up for the speech, and had entered the venue as listeners, thus skirting around the need for a protest permit...who is going to arrest anyone because they are wearing a blue dress? However, the protestors apparently were scattered throughout the audience. My SUFP acquaintance believes that they made an effective statement against Republicans, the neocon-dominated Bush administration, and Ken Starr in particular.
But, once again, I bring you to the official eye-witness account of the speech:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Even if SUFP had stuck with the strategy of attending the speech wearing blue dresses, they should have stayed together as a single group...that way they would stand out visably, and that would have gotten them noticed.
Instead, they chose to spread out, and send a quiet message.
The message was so quiet that it was not noticed.
SUFP has thus proven that they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to putting on a protest. Rather than maximizing their effect and cleverly making their presence known in a respectful manner, they diluted themselves in a sea of suits, ties, and dresses of a multitude of colors.
SUFP let people down.
They are inept as a protest group, and I for one won't pay much attention to them again.
As if that weren't enough, my SUFP acquaintance apparently thought that I didn't have the right of free speech...just because I don't happen to share her (and SUFP's) liberal anti-Bush policies. She asked me why I didn't sign up to go to Iraq. The conversation wasn't pointing in that direction. We were not talking about the military,and we were not discussing any possibility of a draft (there is none). This just seemed to come out of nowhere. So, according to SUFP, if you believe in the Bush administration and what we are doing in Iraq, or if you perhaps believe in Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation, you should sign up to go to Iraq.
I would if I could. However, with my health, no armed force will take me. However, I should not have to sign up for military service simply because I have a point of view.
However, it was an excellent dodge. The real issue was SUFP, and how they can't put on an effective protest. They and their representatives certainly are good at dodging the issues though.
John B.
PS: I'll post the email I received from an SUFP representative as a seperate article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)