RXML parse error: Attribute 'src' cannot be empty | <emit format="jpeg" jpeg-quality="1" nodata="1" source="cimg" src=""> | <cache minutes="5" variable="var.picture-src"> | <trimlines> | <cache enable-protocol-cache="yes">
RXML parse error: Error in expr attribute: syntax error, unexpected '*' | <set expr="floor( * 540)" variable="var.adjustedW"> | <cache minutes="5" variable="var.picture-src"> | <trimlines> | <cache enable-protocol-cache="yes">
To the Editor:
Where was all this outrage about violent rhetoric (and action) from all these paragons of civic virtue who are now writing letters when:
• The left made movies fantasizing about assassinating President Bush?
• Members of the Democratic Party talked about assassinating Vice President Cheney?
• Left-wing talk radio and TV personalities talked about killing Bush and Cheney and raping Laura Bush?
• Union members were bussed to a tea party gathering, who, on camera, immediately assaulted Kenneth Gladstone, a man who was doing nothing more than sitting at a table creating signs? The assault sent him to the hospital.
And when Ms. Pelosi, the third most powerful person in the country, was given the opportunity to condemn that actual violence, and she very flatly didn’t do so?
Where were letters like the ones we’re now seeing when leftists shouted about killing Eric Cantor because he opposed the president’s health care bill and shot bullets into Mr. Cantor’s campaign office? Nowhere to be found.
Outrage from the press? None. Outrage from the Democrats in Congress? None.
Where were letters like this when President Obama was throwing around calls to “bring guns to a knife fight,” “get in their faces and make them hear you,” “take it to their homes,” “reward your allies and punish your enemies,” among a long litany of other explicitly violent rhetoric? Nowhere to be found.
Should such rhetoric be condemned? Certainly. Is violence like this acceptable? No.
But it would nice just once to see some of this outrage be shown on principle. In other words, we should be condemning this stuff regardless of who the target is. That these letter-writers and professional talking-heads are silent when the violence is directed at someone who isn’t from the left speaks volumes about their actual motives.
Ultimately, the best example are the tea parties. They’ve been derided as violent, hyper and dangerous. Yet there hasn’t been any actual violence from them, but there has been a multitude of violent acts committed against them by people identified as union members and Democratic Party activists.
Who’s dangerous: the people being attacked, or the people doing the attack? Should be obvious, yet again, where were the letters to the editor about this actual violence from the left?
Speak up, people, but do it evenly and at all times, even when it’s directed at people not from your political ideology.
J. Michael Scott