What, Really, Is The Difference?
I’m going to ask a question in a moment that you might not take as serious, but it will be. Before the question, a bit of setup.
Michelle Malkin, writing about a group of thugs that ran some military recruiters off a California college campus, posted some personal contact information about some organizers of that thuggery. She had gotten that information from a public post on another website sympathetic to the organizers’ cause. As a result, she has been threatened numerous times and, most recently, has had a good amount of her personal information (thankfully old information, but neertheless) posted on a rather prominent lefty web community site. Some lefty sites are praising the revelation as fitting retribution for what Malkin had done.
Jeff Goldstein is calling for public condemnation and ostracism of those who are encouraging or supporting this sort of activity and I couldn’t agree more. Anyone who cheers what has happened to Michelle Malkin, regardless of their reason, ought to be persona non grata among those of us with sense in our heads and even a scrap of propriety and manners.
So, after that setup, here is the question: What’s the real difference between the leftists who have done this to Malkin and the Islamists who have threatened anyone who has even considered printing the Mohammed cartoons?
See, I don’t see a substantial difference at all. Sure, the Islamists rioted and burned and beat people in the streets while the leftists didn’t but that’s only because, I suspect, the leftists are too afraid to put their bodies where their threats are. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t the rare and random leftist nut who isn’t afraid of physical confrontation and will take the information his ideological but cowardly mates supply him and do something deadful with it.
So, really, what’s the difference? Both leftists and Islamists use threats and intimidation to try to silence their critics. Both lack the ability to engage in rational discourse. Beither have a problem with suspending the civil rights in a very real way of those with whom they disagree. Both want their own ideologically pure nation where anyone who disagrees with them is relegated to permanent subservience.
About the only difference I can see is that leftists are so inured against violence that all they really have is the bullying of people they know very well won’t or can’t fight back, like military recruiters or bloggers with a family.
Wait. Check that. I can see one more difference. Leftists apparently aren’t as smart as Islamists. See, Islamsts largely pick on targets they know they can beat: unarmed civilians, soft governments, cultural elites, France. Leftists, apparently, have decided to pick on the folks who can not only fight back but who are itching for the fight (kind of like Osama bin Laden did on 9/11, though he’s yet to repeat that terrible tactical msitake). Leftists seem to have a habit of picking folks who not only won’t back down, but will also fight back.
As I see it, the only deep-down difference between leftists and Islamists is that leftists aren’t quite as smart nor brave.
Convince me otherwise. leftists.
No related posts.
Category: Moonbat Nonsense
I agree Jimmie. The similarities are eerie.
No wonder Osama's videos always echo lefty talking points.
I can tell you, firmly, that I agree with you on this one Jimmie…really. But I can only agree that the persons involved in these actions/behaviors display rather poor judgement in addressing opposing viewpoints. They are simply not thinking rationally. Sort of like the guy that thinks with the "wrong head" when it comes to treating women properly.
But the truth…your generalizing again Jimmie. It tends to display shallow thought and promotes "profiling", generic retaliation and other sad consequences.
What it does not promote is the, how did you say it, "the ability to engage in rational discourse". You see Jimmie, not all leftists or Islamists engage in extreme behaviors that you cite. In fact, I'd be willing to bet (pretty confidently) that this element constitutes a small percentage of both leftists and Islamists.
Sort of like a "leftist" concluding that all "rightists" engage in bombing legal abortion clinics or other similar extreme behavior that would take a while to list here. Get the picture Jimmie.
And to be honest, I'm still waiting for your "rational discourse" reply regarding your "Hate Central" blog piece from a few days prior. Possibly your in deep preparation to analyze the results of your Jeapordy debut on your blog site and simply don't have the time.
A lot can be gained from rational discourse, and a lot can be detroyed and prevented by silly comments like yours. One gain, an ability to respectfully disagree while gaining an understanding of the person you disagree with. Another, a possible shift to mutually agreeable "middle ground" (that would be compromise Jimmie).
So the next time you decide to spout off your "patriotism" to the right, try thinking first, do I really know what I'm talking about?
Mikey, I understand what you're saying. Please understand that I'm throwing a blanket condemnation not only on the folks who do this but on those who are on the same ideological side who condone and/or encourage it.
It ought to be a given that behavior like this is beyond the pale, organized by a remote and fringe element, but, shamefully, it is not. The folks who violently protest the military recruiters were not some rabble put together from the far wing of leftist thought. They were organized by a mainstream group on campus – one that is there in good standing. That particular act of thuggery has been cheered by some pretty prominent lefty bloggers. It has gained the applause of those who sit side by side with Democratic elected officials.
When I say "leftist", I am not stereotyping as you may understand the word. I am talking about the majority of leftists I see on television, read in the newspapers and the web, and hear on the radio. I'm talking about the folks who stand in the well of the Senate and who sit with pride in the VIP box at the Democratic National Convention. You say they do not comprise the majority of leftists, and that may well be. But they are the public face of the leftists – the one that every leftist out there allows the world to see. What you call a "small percentage" is, in fact, the top of an iceberg supported by the accomodations of hundreds of thousands of quiet supporters.
You want me to engage in rational discourse, and, as I believe I've proven, I"m more than willing to do so. But I will never attempt rationality with the irrational such as the "Hate Central" blogger because she has proven herself incapable of rational discussion on political matters. I won't attempt rational conversation with those who do what those folks did to Michelle Malkin because one does not bargain with blackmailers.
So be it Jimmie. And again I won't attempt to dispell your observations. But you speak of only threads in a blanket, not the blanket itself. And although I would, again, disagree with your point regardng the "tip of the iceberg", it's a point well taken. But, as a strong-minded leftist, I am confident that your claim regarding the "hundreds of thousands of quiet supporters" is a false pretense.
And Jimmie, you know that the same can be said (generalized) about the right. Problem is, you won't agree with me as I do not agree with you.
So are we at an impass? Hardly, because an objective and open minded righty or lefty will feel strongly about his/her beliefs and support "the (perceived) cause" BUT still acknowledge logic where it exists. That is the key to compromise, a willingness to listen with an open mind and see the total picture.
Suggest a topic, any topic, and with objective, open dialogue compromise can be reached.
Extremists in any camp or school of thought rarely have a willingness to approach opposition with an open mind (but they certainly have the capacity to change).
Maybe it's too idealistic, jaw flapping without substance or just plain hogwash to you, but I believe it and have experienced it.
And I still reserve, and possess, the right to disagree. And if you want to broadcast any facts about me to the general right, go for it :~)
I will tap dance on the windpipe of anyone that tries to harm Michelle Malkin or her family.
All she has to do is say the word and an Army of folks like me will come runnin to her neighborhood.
We will protect her the same way the Bikers protect the military families.
GO 'HEAD, MAKE MY DAY.
Richard Davis
Philadelphia, PA
USN Ret
Mikey, here's the difference.
When someone from the looney right says something outright crazy, there is a very vocal expectation that the reasonable right will distance themselves from that person (or people) and condemn them. The same goes for Christians.
Watch your television after this happens. The first question asked of the right or Christian guest will be "do you condone those remarks" and if the answer is anything but a quick and firm "no", the expectaiton is that they completely support what was said or done. I've seen it happen over and over again. Eric Rudolph comes to mind almost immediately.
That doesn't happen with people on the left. Michael Moore, who in other days would have been a fringe figure on the left, gets to sit next to Jimmy Carter during the DNC. Kos can hardhearetdly dismiss the butchery of American civilians in Iraq and still be hired to consult on over a dozen campaigns as well as get a book contract. I can give more examples of people, who are far from the fringe of the left, who have said things that, had they been on the right, would have been met with demands that the rest of the right distance themselves from them.
Having said that, there should ever be a need for demands. I mentioned the "quiet supporters" and I had folks like you in mind – folks who hear these tings being said and see these things being done, yet do little to nothing to ostracize those people from the left mainstream. I draw the similatiry between those "quiet supporters" and the millions of Muslims who with their silence tacitly approve the thuggery of the Islamists.
Yes, we can talk rationally, you and I. For that I'm very glad. I think it's dialogue like this that will eventually return American politics to civility and reason. I'm thankful that you come back every day, Mikey, and that you join in the discussion.
Screw you Jimmie! Hey…just kidding. But reading some of the right AND left blogs, that's a lot of what is being said. For example, the Michelle Malkin issue. I surfed a bit on both the red and blue sites and found similar statements that basically were nothing more than testosterone testing.
I'll kick your ass, no I'll kick YOUR ass….and so on.
Maybe I'm on some fringe, but I fail to see any value, not to mention reality in this type of dialogue(?).
Yes, I am a staunch, anti bush-boy, liberal. If I see, hear, or look at the dude, I'm raising my finger to shout "Your number one in my book george." And I don't think I have to tell you that it's not my index finger.
I don't blame the military for doing a job that they are told to do. But I am enraged that those that have the authority to give the orders do so in such a flippant manner with little regard to the consequences of their actions. I respect the right of the miltary branches to recruit on campuses. And I respect the right of those that raise the negative signs seen on some of the blogs.
It's personal choice Jimmie, what we're based on here in the good old U.S of A. So we disagree, getover it and let's work something out. So what if I try to recruit a college student to join the Armed Forces…as well, so what if I make a sign that reads f… the Army.
I respect you, Michelle and any other conservative mind that I will probably disagree with until I'm laid to rest. But while on that journey (to the end of life as we know it), I'll keep trying to understand, 1) Why conservatives believe what they believe (the basis of their belief) and 2) How I can gain knowledge and grow personally from each encounter (I also have to admit that I wouldn't mind a "close encounter" with Michelle, but I'm faithfully married to a wonderful woman that I dearly love).
But I often wonder what a child from a far-right Mother and far-left Father would develop into (could there be such a child?). Sorry for digressing, but you know us liberals…all pervs.
Anyway, I'll keep visiting your site to go a few rounds with you…and I thank you for being decent about accepting my polar viewpointss. And yes, I'll keep trying to figure out why we think so differently.
Finally, take moment to see (really) how your explanations on this stream are the same for both right and left. The extremes can't work, period. Even when one party (like the right, currently) is in control.
bush-boy often pisses off his far right constituents because he "caters" to the moderates, spends too much money (even though it's at the expense of Americans), etc.