On Sunday, Utah lawmakers attending the Republican National Convention were quoting as saying that they were sad to see New Yorkers protesting President Bush.
Let’s go over that one more time, just to make sure we understand:
Members of a governing body in a democratic society are sad to see the democratic process at work.
Say what? I don’t care which political mantra those folks chant to themselves in the mirror every morning. I would think they’d be fucking ecstatic that people still care enough to get involved. Sure, they are from Utah, and there are enough people there who’d be quite happy with a one-party system (so long as the baby jesus was elected Almighty President). But come on! Sad?
I shake my head at them.
Alright, enough of that. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
I think my personal favorite happened on Sunday, when House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the demonstrators “anarchists.” Nice, huh? Do you suppose the definition will have to change?
an·ar·chist n.
A member of a free and democratic society who, in a lawful manner, displays his or her displeasure with the President and/or the Republican party.
Arrrgh! They make me crazy, CRAZY, I tell you. The twisted language and unrelenting propaganda. Orwell, darling, you were a f*cking prophet.
What are you talking about?!? I’m THRILLED we live in a democracy and have a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.
Oh, whoops. That’s totalitarianism. My bad.
(All those big words are courtesy of dictionary.com)
You have no idea how frustrating it is to live in a place where the word “liberal” is look upon like you dropped a turd in the livingroom. One learns observe carefully to find “safe” people to whom she can vent.
Teaching in Utah is quite the experience. Oh my heck!
You know their view of the world is pretty closed if they didn’t think there would be protests. I mean, really.
The irony of it is that a large number protesting aren’t New Yorkers. New Yorkers left town.
Ugh…don’t get me started on the RNC. If you’re male, white, straight, and Christian, then you don’t count in this world to them…
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I read this in the NYT) but aren’t many of the protesters are self-described anarchists?
I’m not sad to see (some) protesters exercising their rights to protest.
I am sad to see (some) protesters assaulting police officers and harassing delgates in a threatening manner.
I think “sad” implies “those poor children” or that famous line about “they know not what they do.”
what is sad is the way in which these protesters, ahem, protest. sheer disrespect. sheer rudeness. unabashed display of uncivility. can you imagine the stank that would have been made if republican protesters would have acted in the same manner as these liberals at the democratic convention?!?
I was perplexed that the RNC had located itself in New York this year fully knowing this was not their territory until it occurred to me that this is a party that likes seeing itself as persecuted. This is a party full of right-wing religious zealots who run every aspect of society and still complain that they’re somehow being brave in standing up for their faith. This is a party pandered to by the media but still enjoys seeing itself as objects of derision. This is a party of rich folks benefitting from hundreds of tax breaks and loopholes who enjoy compaining about being victimized by the tax code. I bet they’re all having the time of their lives.
not all of us protestors behaved badly. some of us actually continue to behave very well. sure, some people haven’t. but please don’t think that everyone who’s dissatisfied with the current regime is an anarchist wacko (and yes, some of the protestors did identify as anarchists–but not as many as you’d think).
despite all the sniping that we throw at each other over fundamental disagreements on specific issues, most liberals are very similar to conservatives; not in belief, but in behavior–most people on both sides are normal, law abiding, good people. it’s just too bad that it is the extremist freaks on both sides that get most of the press, and most of the power.
or, simply put, we as a whole are no more anarchist freaks than you as a whole are the antichrist.
and by ‘we’ i mean liberals and ‘you’ i mean conservatives. can’t let bad and/or confusing grammar well enough alone.
right.
Fish, how do you know that they were sad at the process?
They might have been sad that the object of protest was the President. They support him, so they are sad that others don’t. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like they’re arresting protestors or anything, right?
Oh. Damn.
I think if I was an American I would be really, really embarrassed.
Thank the baby jesus I’m Canadian, eh!
…um…wait…didn’t our last Prime Minister PUNCH OUT a protester?…oh…yeah…he did…now THAT’S embarrassing…
Being sad over the democratic process at work and being sad over people insulting their choice for president as well as other Americans who have every right to believe what they believe just as they have the right to believe what they believe and shout obcenities, I would venture are two different forms of saddness. Kind of like fish and cheese. What do they have in common? They’re food. Hmmm… that’s an interesting insight.
Are you confused yet? I enjoy that too much I think. Anyway, as I walked down the streets of Cincinnati as a Mormon missionary I got yelled at all the time. Did it make me sad? Well, yes and no. It didn’t make me sad for myself. There was no self-pitty. In fact, it made me laugh out loud most of the time. Did it make me sad that people were exercising their rights to free speech? Heck no. How did it make sad then? Comments have been made about how closed minds Utahns are. Of course, by saying Utahns I assume you mean people of the LDS faith (mormons) living in Utah. I’ll admit that a crap load of us are closed minded and it would do some good if we all lived out of Utah for a while, but by assumming that we’re all closed minded is just as bad as you being closed minded to the idea that maybe they weren’t sad to see the democratic process at work, but rather sad to see people step down as far as they did to protest. And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they are closed minded. If they are then, yes. That was dumb to say that. If not… that’s different. Kind of like that fish and cheetoes thing. Or was it just cheese?
Saying “I don’t think Bush should be President because he’s done this and this” and saying “I don’t think he should be %#@$$#& Pres because of this and you, Mr. Lawmaker standing nearby are a $#@%#& ^%$%@!!!!!” are going to trigger two different responses, while both completely legal. To the first one might say “okay, but I believe differently” while to the second one might say “oh yeah we’ll you’re a #$@!#$@#!” or “sad”. Sad that they have to talk like that to be democratic.
Yes, I know, the Republicans were shouting things back. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in free speech, but I think all of us would benefit from thinking a little bit about how we approach a situation before we act. Republicans included. 
Anyway, people yelling at me only made me sad because those types of people had probably never even heard what a mormon believes. Why believe what other people tell you? Find out for yourself. Then again, maybe they have listened and that’s what they think. If so, oh well. So whose closed minded? I think we all are in our own way.
Looks like you need your own blog, popthestack. Or a how-to course in brevity.
Thanks Clint, very well put. That makes total sense to me.
Popthestack, I might be tired, but I didnt understand one word of that.-:)
The reason that there was dismay that people opposed the president, and the reason that the RNC is in New York, can be summed up in two words: War President.
Bush would clearly like to position himself as a War President, since War Presidents often win.
If you’re going to be a War President, then you have to be on the battlefield. New York is the site of the enemy attack, so the RNC has to go there.
If you’re going to be a War President, then aiding and abetting the enemy cannot be tolerated.
Of course, Bush has one advantage in being a War President – it’s given him a clearness of purpose. (Compare and contrast.)
Declaring oneself “War President” is kind of like declaring oneself the King of Pop (Michael Jackson), the King of All Media (Howard Stern) or the King of R&B (Whitney Houston, speaking of her husband, Bobby Brown).
I’m with missie, way up there. Well put, and one of the few comments from today with which I wholly agree.
Well, aside from the King O’R&B!
Hahahaha. That is cracking me up.
So! How ’bout dem Yankees?
:: crickets chirp ::
I am no big fan of G.W.Bush. Infact,I hate him, to say the least. Nevertheless, I completely agree with Popthestack. Couldnt have said it better, or in lesser words. And Fish, your retort to Popthestack is so extremely narrow minded. Maybe you should consider setting a word-limit for your ‘comments’ space if you dont like people explaining their point too elaborately. And to your discomfort.
Lighten up! It wasn’t narrow minded. It was snarky.