I found yesterday’s testimony to be both heartbreaking and bracing. Gone was the patina of slickness from the politicians who we are so desperately sick and tired of. In its place was the honest dignity of the police officers who were sitting ducks for a wild-eyed mob. Their descriptions were horrifying. But their nobility in the face of…
I found yesterday’s testimony to be both heartbreaking and bracing. Gone was the patina of slickness from the politicians who we are so desperately sick and tired of. In its place was the honest dignity of the police officers who were sitting ducks for a wild-eyed mob. Their descriptions were horrifying. But their nobility in the face of the ambush was inspiring, especially in that it was narrated so bluntly, with no artifice. I commend the Committee for putting them first, both temporally and metaphorically.
I am delighted that the craziest of the crazies tried to compete with them. What a delicious decision that was. In their failed press conference, they highlighted for anyone who has a shred of decency, the difference between good and evil. Their lame attempt to counter the narrative amounted to an unintentional public service. We saw them at their pathetic worst.
I think that this hearing may well be a powder keg. If done properly and fully, it will cut to the root of the problem. Evidence that elected politicians conspired should not be hard to find. I have a mental picture of the Gosars, the Boeberts, the Gohmerts fleeing for whatever hiding places they can find.
Alas I think the thugs may interrupt before it gets to that point. I feel we are near the sharp edge of the spear…but with right on our side.
Well said: "I am delighted that the craziest of the crazies tried to compete with them. What a delicious decision that was. In their failed press conference, they highlighted for anyone who has a shred of decency, the difference between good and evil. Their lame attempt to counter the narrative amounted to an unintentional public service. We saw them at their pathetic worst."
That was a brilliant media juxtaposition, wasn't it?!!!
Fair point. I thought interruption was beside the point and a little annoying. I would have liked to have watched them drink their fill of the poisoned chalice. They were to me, a curiosity, an exhibit of what it’s like to be tethered to neither morality nor reality. I could have watched the spectacle longer because clearly it was going to do nothing but sink into the muck deeper by the minute. I remember as a teenager and young adult watching televangelists fulminate. I couldn’t switch the channel to save my life. They *fascinated* me. I couldn’t believe that they could deliver such total bullshit at such at a pitch.
Your point about denying others free speech is thoughtful. As I reflect on it though, I cannot conjure up great sympathy. So much that is discreditable and dangerous has been done by these fame whores. I’m not sure we can always be expected to hold ourselves to the most scrupulous niceties at every turn.
It’s hard not to believe that we aren’t nearing a serious confrontation.
I think we should not establish any pattern of following and abusing a la the Westboro Church.
But in the final analysis your point is timely and not to be disputed.
Protecting free speech means even that speech which is abhorrent, yes? It is in the quality of rebuttal that one exercises civilized take down of repugnant ideas. By silencing the opposition, don't we indicate that our ideals are mere hypocrisy, practiced only when what is said is acceptable to the listener? I hold that in doing so, we risk abandoning democratic ideas for convenience. And they have turned us into them.
When someone propagates lies about the Coronavirus, it's akin to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. There is no First Amendment right in this case.
There is no equivalence in 'protecting free speech' here. The opposition were not silenced, they were met with opposition and they chose to slink out of the room like the yellow bellied rat bastards that they are.
I found yesterday’s testimony to be both heartbreaking and bracing. Gone was the patina of slickness from the politicians who we are so desperately sick and tired of. In its place was the honest dignity of the police officers who were sitting ducks for a wild-eyed mob. Their descriptions were horrifying. But their nobility in the face of the ambush was inspiring, especially in that it was narrated so bluntly, with no artifice. I commend the Committee for putting them first, both temporally and metaphorically.
I am delighted that the craziest of the crazies tried to compete with them. What a delicious decision that was. In their failed press conference, they highlighted for anyone who has a shred of decency, the difference between good and evil. Their lame attempt to counter the narrative amounted to an unintentional public service. We saw them at their pathetic worst.
I think that this hearing may well be a powder keg. If done properly and fully, it will cut to the root of the problem. Evidence that elected politicians conspired should not be hard to find. I have a mental picture of the Gosars, the Boeberts, the Gohmerts fleeing for whatever hiding places they can find.
Alas I think the thugs may interrupt before it gets to that point. I feel we are near the sharp edge of the spear…but with right on our side.
Well said: "I am delighted that the craziest of the crazies tried to compete with them. What a delicious decision that was. In their failed press conference, they highlighted for anyone who has a shred of decency, the difference between good and evil. Their lame attempt to counter the narrative amounted to an unintentional public service. We saw them at their pathetic worst."
That was a brilliant media juxtaposition, wasn't it?!!!
No concern in supporting liberal fascism? When we prevent the opposition from speaking, isn't that when we then become what we profess to hate?
Fair point. I thought interruption was beside the point and a little annoying. I would have liked to have watched them drink their fill of the poisoned chalice. They were to me, a curiosity, an exhibit of what it’s like to be tethered to neither morality nor reality. I could have watched the spectacle longer because clearly it was going to do nothing but sink into the muck deeper by the minute. I remember as a teenager and young adult watching televangelists fulminate. I couldn’t switch the channel to save my life. They *fascinated* me. I couldn’t believe that they could deliver such total bullshit at such at a pitch.
Your point about denying others free speech is thoughtful. As I reflect on it though, I cannot conjure up great sympathy. So much that is discreditable and dangerous has been done by these fame whores. I’m not sure we can always be expected to hold ourselves to the most scrupulous niceties at every turn.
It’s hard not to believe that we aren’t nearing a serious confrontation.
I think we should not establish any pattern of following and abusing a la the Westboro Church.
But in the final analysis your point is timely and not to be disputed.
Tolerating intolerance is not healthy.
Protecting free speech means even that speech which is abhorrent, yes? It is in the quality of rebuttal that one exercises civilized take down of repugnant ideas. By silencing the opposition, don't we indicate that our ideals are mere hypocrisy, practiced only when what is said is acceptable to the listener? I hold that in doing so, we risk abandoning democratic ideas for convenience. And they have turned us into them.
When someone propagates lies about the Coronavirus, it's akin to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. There is no First Amendment right in this case.
There is no equivalence in 'protecting free speech' here. The opposition were not silenced, they were met with opposition and they chose to slink out of the room like the yellow bellied rat bastards that they are.
Again, tolerating intolerance is not healthy.
Put that way, I understand the boundary. Thanks.
Amen.