Music Notes
-
The big loss in music this week was that of Zakir Hussain, dead at 73. I
had a few chances to see the great tabla player here and there but never
did. Si...
3 hours ago
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Pro-war thuggery
And typically, they're proud of it.
Like the comment one person posted to the video yesterday (since removed, as any dissent from or discussion of the party line lends not to be tolerated in some circles), it's confusing strength with rightness. Getting physical with Code Pink protesters & damaging their property doesn't make you right about continuing the occupation. It only proves you're a thug who chooses not to be civil.
It's thinking like this (& Melanie Morgan, who ripped up a sign taken from a "moonbat" on stage with glee, and a few other leaders in their movement) that encourages & celebrates violence as a way of getting what they want, that leads us into these conflicts. It is often far more courageous to refuse the temptation to violence than to give into it.
Watch the video & decide for yourself whether we want this kinda thinkin' to have any influence over American foreign policy.
(As the poster of the vid is deleting any negative comments about it, I figured I'd bring them here, as I see them. Both sides deserve to be heard.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.gif)
13 comments:
2 YT comments from hpdonle:
as a Marine veteran of Vietnam those people attacking Code pink make me ashamed of being a veteran. They are no better than the brown-shirts of Germany in the 50s and 40s, they are bullies and cowards undeserving of any respect. And the men attacking women are nothing more than punks and cowards. They are the problem with this country and why it is rapidly becoming a fascist state.
-------------------------------
And I'll bet they are also a part of the Gathering of Weasels. They should be ashamed of themselves. The only ones handed their asses in this video is the punks attacking Code Pink. Code Pink stood up just like MLK Jr and Gandhi stood up to the cowards of their times.
I see. We are fighting in Iraq to defend freedom, as long as it is freedom we agree with. Disgusting.
That seems to be the situation, Patrick... Either agree, or suffer the consequences.
I used to believe that bad-behaving wingnuts did it for ratings and money. This video suggests otherwise.
I am not surprised about Melanie Morgan from KSFO Radio. It is not enough to incite angry rhetoric on the airwaves; now she is inciting violence in the streets. A brief sample of Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers commenting on the second anniversary of Katrina (courtesy of "spockosbrain":http://spockosbrain.com):
Rodgers: I don’t wanna hear anymore of this crap from people in Louisiana saying. 'Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme.' Shut the hell up. Solve your own problems. It’s been two years, grow up.
Rodgers: New Orleans is "a sewer"
Morgan: Money going into New Orleans is going down "a rathole."
Over the past year, Spocko has documented incitements to commit castration and rape by this terrible duo and has been moderately successful in convincing advertisers to pull their ads.
I am amazed that the show itself has not been pulled from the air, but Disney sees opportunity for profiting from this stuff: Actual show content does not seem to bother the corporate conscience.
Actually Disney sold the station (along with 21 others to Citadel Broadcasting) But Disney DOES still own 57 percent of the company, nice trick Disney. The old "we just own it we aren't responsible" game.
KSFO lost 28 advertisers, Majors like Fed Ex, Visa, Master Card and Bank of America. But of course Disney was willing to absorb the loss because they wanted the license and the 2.7 billion dollar citadel broadcasting deal to go through.
What you have here is something that is clearly an extension of what Morgan says over the publicly granted airwaves.
So take what you see here with what you hear on the radio.
They broadcast over the airwaves.
They say:
"We" are all getting together to "fight back" against "code pinkos" and they promote this to TV reporters because they know that the possibility for violence makes for juicy footage.
They then go to the event and provide the actual violence. A shouting father of a dead child. They do this on purpose. It is a PR tactic to get the cameras there. They are counting on the left to NOT hit them back. The left are the adults in this story. MAF and a GOE people are acting like children.
You can say, "It makes for good TV"
But is that all that is going on here?
Maybe not.
Is it really okay for Ms. Morgan's to use the public's airwaves to gather people to incite violence?
What if she did the same thing and directed it toward the federal government or the President? Would this gathering of people to "fight back" be allowed?
Is it okay because it is directed toward other Americans? Because those Americans are democrats and liberals? Is this really a good use of our public broadcasting resources? Is this something that the Advertisers should be paying for?
Remember the woman who died from drinking too much water in a contest sponsored by the station?
Everyone (including KSFO hosts) condemned that stupid stunt. And the DJs AND the management were fired.
MAF's events have sponsorship from the NRA. In the past the president of the NRA has given his blessing to their cross country Get Cindy Sheehan events. Just how far does this have to go?
Do we really need to wait until someone from Code Pink is shot?
I really don't want to wait until bodily harm happens until we say, "It is not okay to use the radio station in this fashion."
Will MAF and ABC Radio/Citadel Broadcasting/Disney be held responsible for that?
Because they KNEW then they KNOW now and they encourage it.
It's one thing for a bunch of people get together and plan a rally with the purpose of a peaceful protest, but when a broadcaster gives people instructions to gather together to "fight back" what are they really doing? What are they really saying?
What do they really want? To provoke violence. To incite violence.
Mark this video tape for the future. When something bad happens nobody can say, "Nobody could have anticipated violence would have happened."
In the future, remember who encouraged this===MAF===who paid for it --MAF-- and who sponsored it by allowing the full and knowing use of their facilities KSFO advertisers and---ABC Radio, Citadel Broadcasting and it's Parent Company (who owns 57 percent of them) Disney.
There is little I can add to your wise comments. Some in the media & other positions of power do incite violence, and should know better.
repsac3, last night after I left my comment here, I visited Spocko's site and mentioned your post with the hope that he might notice. I believe he has, and I have reason to suspect that the moniker of Mr. may be Spocko himself. There is no other blogger or commenter who would have such command of the facts about this miserable cabal.
Spocko is rare in the blogosphere. There are bloggers who rant, and bloggers who analyze, but few are proactive like Spocko. It was he who single-handedly initiated the flight of advertisers from KSFO; and he is very modest about taking credit. He does not post very often, but when he does, it is always a worthwhile read.
Hmm, some of us veterans are afraid of old ladies wearing pink?
Bullies? Hmm...
I wish i could understand what these violent thugs are saying...
"And typically, they're proud of it."
who is proud of it? be specific with your accusations.
"
Watch the video & decide for yourself whether we want this kinda thinkin' to have any influence over American foreign policy."
what is the basis of this accusation?
how many pro-victory advocates have you polled to come to your conclusion that the behavior of a few are consistent with the ideas of the whole in regards to protests?
who is proud of it? be specific with your accusations.
The ones in the video causing the trouble, the one who posted the video with the title "Code Pink Gets Their Asses Handed To Them- GOE," and all but one of the folks who commented on the video at YouTube. (I could also post 2 similar YouTube videos from the March 17 protest, with similar titles & comments.)
how many pro-victory advocates have you polled to come to your conclusion that the behavior of a few are consistent with the ideas of the whole in regards to protests?
Again, I'm only posting about the ones who actually evidence behavior such as this; behavior which I believe confuses strength with rightness. In my opinion, the thinking here isn't all that much different than the thinking that leads folks into war in the first place.
As far as protesters (pro & con) go, this isn't the behavior of the many, & I never intended to imply it was... A few act this way, a larger group applauds it, and a still larger group condones it by their silence. I'm sure there are also some who speak out against such behavior when it occurs by anyone on their side, as well but, as the person who posted this video is moderating comments against it into oblivion, I cannot say how many.
And, lest you think I'm being purely partisan, I feel just the same about the black bloc asses who commit violence & vandalism at protests, claiming to do so in the name of peace. The same situation applies, where a few do it, a few more applaud it, and far too many condone it with their silence.
The only place I see a difference is that the larger goal of the peace movement is nonviolent solutions to conflict, where the larger goal of the "continue the war" supporters is continuing to use violence as the solution to conflict.
"The only place I see a difference is that the larger goal of the peace movement is nonviolent solutions to conflict, where the larger goal of the "continue the war" supporters is continuing to use violence as the solution to conflict."
then how do you justify your support for the war in afghanistan? there you have the same thing, the use of violence to solve a conflict? you can't have it both ways, the use of violence in one case and non-vilence in another. a pacifist would not support any use of violence under any circumstance.
a pacifist would not support any use of violence under any circumstance.
And therein you answer your own question. As long as we're talking only about pacifists, you are correct. But not everyone in the opposed to this war is a pacifist. Just as there are some supporters of the occupation of Iraq who also wish do take on Iran (&/or Korea &/or Syria) and some who do not, there are some in the peace movement who are fine retaliating against a nation & government involved in the 9/11 attack, but also believe a first strike against Iraq, who did not attack us, was unwarranted.
Many feel that less violent means toward getting the outcome we desired were not exhausted and, while there does come a time for war, it should always be a last resort, and we hadn't reached that point.
Still others feel that while war may have been inevitable, we should've done more to prepare for the outcomes which were predicted ten years earlier by those in Bush 41's administration (some of whom are also in 43's administration). They have no excuse for not knowing what would happen, and their failure to even try to prepare for it, or to tell the truth to the American people, call everything they've done since into question. These people don't trust that this Bush administration won't continue to screw up & shade the facts, and fear that more American life & trust for this country will be lost as a result of the actions Bush takes in continuing this fiasco.
For the pacifists, no violence is acceptable. But even those who accept violence as a tool in the problem-solving shed would prefer to see it buried in the back, and used only after every other non-violent & less-violnt tool has failed to do the job. (& then only after questioning whether the job really needs doing in the first place, and weighing all the costs.)
In the case of these anti-peace demonstrators running out & grabbing the signs & costumes of the Code Pink protesters, they did not exhaust all other methods for getting the job done, or question whether silencing this dissent was a job that needed doing. Many feel Bush acted very similarly in bombing & invading Iraq, and wonder whether we should continue digging the hole.
Post a Comment