The convoluted logic by a counter protester
Yes, folks there was a counter protest at the Brighton Twelve Corners war protest/vigil. We’ve covered counter protests before. Remember when Cheney came to raise money for Randy Kuhl? Anyway, some guy and his wife came out quietly held counter protest signs. Here is the counter protest.
The sign says “Welcome friends of Al-Qaeda”. His wife had a shirt that said phrase on the back something like America love it or leave it. The guy on the right is keeping them company with a “Support the troops, end the war sign”.
I really wanted to know what made them come out so I went over and asked them
The guy started the conversation with a emphatic statement “look, I’m not looking to debate you”. So I agreed not to debate or argue just to listen. The guy starts off that he isn’t a fan of George Bush or the war but protesting when we have troops in the field is wrong.
He tells me that all the people over the other side of the street are demanding an immediate withdrawal, want to stop funding the war. That they are picking and choosing which rights they are adhering to.
The kicker was this guy tells me that when he was younger “we had more responsibilities that rights”.
Well I was struck by that comment - I knew the other comments were not true so I focused on his comment “More responsibilities than rights”. I’m thinking the guy is not so old that the bill of rights were not in place. So I press him - please explain. Well, the guy gets agitated. Repeats the phrase. I calmly ask him again - explain it.
Well - He starts to visibly shake - raises his voice - so much so that the nearby bicycle cop rides over and asks if everything is OK. I ask the guy if everything OK. He says yes and the cop rides away. Then the guy says - I’m done talking - I’ve got three words - Duty Honor Country.
I thanked him and left.
Convoluted logic.
First off - the guy came out. Congratulations I just wish the guy could have articulated his feelings. No matter.
Friends of Al-Qaeda? Thanks. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Apparently, he didn’t read this article. I would say that there are no friends of Al-Qaeda here in the good old U.S.A. Al-Qaeda = 9/11 = Osama. Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Well read this. The closest friend to Al-Qaeda is President Bush - looking for Al-Qaeda in all the wrong places. Oh, how is that search for Osama coming? Didn’t he just release a video? But then the people this counter protester was protesting already knew that.
The most troubling piece - seriously - in my mind it was troubling - was the comment more responsibilities than rights. What the heck does that mean?
This is a very good post. I’d say his statement “more responsibilities than rights” is a slam to the ’60’s and every generation since then. I think he’s saying they just shut up and took their lumps pre-Vietnam. It’s very sheepish mentality, i.e., just let the government spoonfeed us their rhetoric and we remain blissfully unaware that we’re being fattened for the metaphorical (or actual) slaughter. Baaaa. This type of thinking led to Germany’s problems and contributed to the Milgrim scientific experiment of social torture. Here’s a link if you are not familiar with that frightening experiment: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=443
Hooray for more responsibilities than rights. So very American.
I don’t know exactly what the counter-protestor was trying to say, but maybe he meant to say that civil and political rights and civic responsibilities go hand in hand. We have a right to vote along with a responsibility to vote and be active in civic affairs. We have a right to free speech but we also have a responsibility to allow others the right to express divirgent views.
Extremists on the left and right often try to shut up opposing viewpoints rather than giving them a fair hearing. Most of your regular contributors seem willing to debate opposing views rather than shout them down, but there are a few who consistently denigrate any conservative viewpoint.
I often feel the thinly veiled contempt for any opinion that supports the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Many think there are valid reasons for continuing the war while acknowledging that many errors were made in both the war’s inception and prosecution. Many on your site, however, clearly believe that anyone supporting the War is either a dupe, a moron, or a criminal.
It could be that the counter-protester was trying to articulate the slogan “freedom isn’t free”. That theory holds that some things are important enough to fight for and that our right to protest freely was vindicated by many people’s willingness to fight or die for it.
Holding that view doesn’t deigrate the protesters. Neither does it make the counter-protester a sheeplike follower of the government.
John -
A couple of things. I’m more inclined to go with the put up and shut up comment. of Army42. That was my sense. I also got the sense that people (protestors etc) should know their place.
I liked the following comment.
Almost majority rules as long as the rights of the minority are protected. This hits on a core theme of one of the many tings that are wrong with this the direction our country is heading. Majority rules and if you don’t like it join the majority. That irks me to no end.
Regarding debate. Sure there are always a few people on either side who do not want discourse. Argument based in fact is a good thing the key of course is both sides need to be willing to listen. It is difficult to do that in the blog medium. Nuances get lost, the ever decreasing attention span, etc. We keep trying.
Re contempt for those continuing the Iraq war. For me it is a fruit from the poison tree argument. It still does not make it right. I also don’t believe our government reports (how things will get soo worse) because frankly they have lost credibility. We really screwed up and with all the Presidential medals of Freedom handed out, the promotions and true lack of accountability - It simply make me sick. That is a subject for another post.
Interpreting the slogan Freedom isn’t free. Sure I agree with that. To me that mean dissent. To others it means sacrifice. In my mind it is both the same thing. I’m not ready to sacrifice my rights to be “free” because my rights are what are making me “free”.
Stlo7 said “I’m not ready to sacrifice my rights to be “free†because my rights are what are making me “freeâ€ÂÂ.”
I nominate that for Best Comment Ever.
John DiCaro, you make good points. My sheep comment was to the notion by “counter protesters” that we shouldn’t be protesting. It is imperative that Americans continue to speak their opinions, no matter what side, and so when Ari Fleischer says “Americans should watch what they say” it just gives me chills.
When I was searching for people to protest Tom Reynolds, I encountered a gentleman (who I know is conservative) who told me that I shouldn’t be doing such a thing. He sounded a lot like the guy you met stlo7. He told me that it was “un-American” to protest the war while our troops are overseas.
So here’s my question: When is the best time to protest a war? Before? After?
To me, during the war makes the most sense. But maybe that’s my “un-American” side talking.
What he means by “more responsibilities than rights” is this… “Rights are things that people are allowed to do. Responsibilities are things that people are expected to do.”
There are many that don’t realize that there are certain rights that are GUARANTEED in this country. Our government is entrusted with the RESPONSIBILITY to uphold those RIGHTS.
“WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT….”
——————————————————————
“The First Amendment means to me … that the only constitutional way our Government can preserve itself is to leave its people the fullest possible freedom to praise, criticize, or discuss, as they see fit, all governmental policies and to suggest, if they desire, that even its most fundamental postulates are bad and should be changed…. ”
Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1886-1971 from his
dissenting opinion in Barenblatt v. United States, 1959
Justice Black was a wise man… FDR knew what he was doing when he nominated him.
Sorry, Jiminy, you have it wrong. The government is not the entity that guarantees our rights. The people have the responsibility to ensure our rights.
If the government fails us, we have the responsibility and power to change the government. That power can be our votes, our protests, or in extreme circumstances, even revolution.
That is why I (and most conservatives) want government to have no more power than is needed to perform its vital functions. The more powerful government becomes, the less certain that we can protect ourselves from it.
John -
Isn’t this a chicken / egg thing? Don’t they both need each other? Isn’t the answer both the people and government guarantees our rights. So your comment earlier
and my subsequent response about protection of minority rights falls under the government needs to protect rights. Isn’t government specifically the executive branch the ultimate enforcer of the laws (and its non-federal branch equivalents)
When the government fails to do that the people need to elect a new government.
It is a shared responsibility not a one over the other.
And I respect that John - but in my heart, until they remove “We The People”…the citizens of this country ARE the government. That is what has been forgotten. Prior to “career” politicians, attorneys being elected and suing citizens for daring to disagree, and the ultra rich holding all the power, it was the people who represented the people.
In as much as our Constitution has been challenged (especially under this administration), it can be returned to the people. But it’s those same people that have the power to make that change.
They need to choose carefully when they vote, and make certain that they actually DO vote. A government not “of the people” has convinced many that their vote doesn’t count.
I disagree. I can respect the pro-war singular protestor and his wife and acknowledge his right to take that position as much as those who stand up against it. Asked which side of the road I would stand on literally, it would be the side of those against the war.
Our country is changing, dangerously changing. The lies created to launch not only one war, but TWO, and the buy-up by these same ultra-rich of the media sources that control what is distributed, the manufacturers and companies that profit within the network, like Halliburton from war, are so wrong.
During Vietnam, the changing wave came when night after night, citizens of this country watched the horror on their television sets. The words of reporters like Dan Rather telling and showing Americans first hand the truth from the war front.
During Desert Storm, CNN broadcast the war 24/7 and it was referred to as “Nintendo game” style viewing of war. It was criticized by many for removing the lives of the soldiers in exchange for the excitement of the scene.
This war? Early on, scenes were shown. Reporters were embedded with troops. Until things changed. Now we see nothing - and it’s so bad, and so dangerous, the reporters can’t even go out without fear of losing their lives. We have seen nothing of these places and towns with names we had never heard of prior to this attack. Now we know the names, but we have seen nothing - absolutely nothing - of these supposed improvements or changes that have occurred - unless it’s in a very controlled environment.
That is why your final paragraph statement rings so true:
“That is why I (and most conservatives) want government to have no more power than is needed to perform its vital functions. The more powerful government becomes, the less certain that we can protect ourselves from it.”
Let’s hope we both vote to protect and preserve what fundamentally belongs to US.
We can hope John, and we have to try, and make certain we encourage all those around us to do the same.