Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Murtha Sued
Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA) has been sued by a Marine involved in the Haditha incident. For defamation. For that crack about killing civilians “in cold blood.”
Good.
This is one of the things Democrats do that personally, I find to be most reprehensible. It’s not the defamation, it’s the much broader issue of “rights.” Over and over and over again, you see them promoting themselves as the defenders of the rights we’re supposed to have, even defining specious things as rights, things nobody guaranteed to anybody to begin with. And then they tack on those two words, “for all.” They stand up “for the little guy” and get the rumor mill chugging away, that boy oh boy, if it weren’t for them, nobody else would defend that little guy, because after all he’s the little guy. Supposedly, in America we’re up to our eyeballs in people who want to defend the big guy. Riiiiiiiiggghhhhttt.
But this is the part that gets me pig-bitin’ mad. The “for all” part. When they defend child molesters against prosecution, and advance the free-speech rights of terrorists…start filing papers so Muhammed Al-Hoozeewatzit can get cream cheese on his bagel down in Gitmo…supposedly, they’re defending “the least among us.” Implication being, the suit on behalf of Al-Hoozeewatzit succeeds, the rights of everybody else have been protected, but if it went the other way, it wouldn’t work. Something people believe by implication, but isn’t articulated, outright, anywhere.
Nevertheless, a lot of people are quite exuberant about the notion that Democrats are all about defending the rights “of us all.” The universality of these rights, is the primary issue; from whence we supposedly got the rights, is a purely secondary consideration. Take a look at their platform. Better-paying jobs, dignified retirement, lower gas prices and college access — for all.
And then they do crap like what John Murtha did. Just as the Gitmo boys haven’t been given a fair trial, neither had the Marines; and yet the Marines were guilty. So, it’s not “for all” after all, is it? What would happen if a Republican congressman took to the floor and said “I want to stop calling Muhammad Al-Hoozeewatzit a ‘detainee’ because, well, screw it, I know he’s a terrorist. I’m going to start calling him a terrorist.” What would Congressman Murtha himself have to say about that? Probably something about innocent-until-proven-guilty, and protecting-the-rights-of-the-least-of-us, and rights-guaranteed-to-us-ALL.
And that’s my point. NOT “all.” That’s what I find really odious. Democrats act like they surrender the definition of “all” to the masses, to dictionaries yet-unwritten, to generations-yet-unborn. But they don’t. The definition of a word, is something they guard jealously. “All” is given the meaning, moment-to-moment, that helps them out best.
Clearly, it doesn’t include Marines and sailors.
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.
Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine’s reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.
Godspeed, Sergeant Wuterich!
And Republicans. Can you make an issue out of this so we can have a referendum on it? Just something to force the Democrats to defend us all, when they so frivolously toss around the word “all.” Even if the Haditha charges turn out to be true, press the issue anyway. Surely, our left-wingers would do the same, if only a conservative had the stones to call an accused terrorist an actual terrorist.
In fact, do that for everything. When Democrats say they want to help “all working families” make an issue out of stinkin’ rich working families. Do they get help? When Democrats talk about free speech for all, ask about free speech for Republicans. Is that included? Make ’em give an answer; they’re the ones who are supposed to explain what they’re all about.
Democrats have gone my entire life, and then some, not being called-upon to answer it. It’s a simple question. Does “all” mean all?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.