Based on a couple of things I have recently read, I am a freak, hate intellectuals and am just downright ignorant. I may be even worse than that since those characterizations come from just two sources. A brief elaboration on the intellectual comment. Not only do I hate intellectuals but I probably don’t even want to associate with them since there is no room for them in the Republican Party, or so says Chris Matthews. Oops, I wasn’t supposed to mention his name. Should I not quote him as saying that Rick Perry is a clown?
I realize that politicians have to accept a certain level of name calling as part of the territory but I so wish that those in the media who make their living with their words, could describe a candidate or office holder without the use of epithets. This applies to both ends of the spectrum since both are guilty of using this tactic and I just cannot stand it. It reminds me of one of my #1 pet peeves, tearing down another to make oneself look good.
I could probably be called lots of things but I am relatively certain that freak is not one of them. That was the name applied to Rep Louie Gohmert just a few weeks ago. and it has been amplified with the word crazy among others. And, since I like the congressman, while not always agreeing with him, guess I am a freak by association.
So, is there a cure for this political name calling? I really doubt it since the practice is time-honored in American politics as far back as he days of George Washington. In fact, the names used to describe some of our earlier presidents were generally far more creative than those used today.
In fact, if I hear another conservative called Nazi, I think I might have a fit. What makes this epithet so abhorrent to me is the person using the name has got to know better, He or she has to know what Nazis did and i daresay that none of those so described have done things to equal those.
So, the next time you see fit to “attack” a politician, try to use an appropriate word.
Often times, a speaker trying valiantly to make a point or to rouse his supporters will allow his reach to far exceed his grasp. Yesterday that happened to a gentleman named Christopher Shelton. It was that or Mr Shelton is woefully ignorant of 20th century American history or he just doesn’t care what he says is it makes his point.
Mr Shelton is the District 1 vice-president for the Communications Workers of America and spoke at a rally in Trenton, New Jersey yesterday. The purpose of said rally was to protest New Jersey Gov Chris Christie’s pension deal that would cut pensions and benefits for public workers. Mr Shelton apparently was so focused on firing up the crowd that he employed the most hateful imagery he could imagine and then made it worse.
He compared the governor to one Adolph Hitler, yep that guy, as my grandson might say. Warming to his task as any speaker will do when faced with a cheering crowd, he went on to compare the New Jersey pension fight to WWII and to say that there was a need for WWIII to get rid of Adolph Christie. Rally attendees responded in what way do you think? Believe it or not they wildly cheered Mr Shelton’s remarks.
Now, of course since this information became public Mr Shelton issued an obligatory apology to the governor and anyone else he offended but also stressed the affected workers had every right to be angry. Not really much of an apology from my perspective.
I am unsure what bothers me the most about this. It could be the analogies Mr Shelton made, the cheering response or the half-hearted apology. I think it probably r is all three. Besides, how many members of his audience even heard the apology or paid any attention to it. Perhaps he still accomplished what he set out to do . But it just seems he really damaged his own cause and gave more credence to those who think union leaders always “demagogue” issues or people to make their case. I certainly that the leadership of my union never resorts to such tactics. The whole incident gives me a very negative feeling and sounds like it could have come from the playbook of a Saul Alinsky. Unions need friends to make their point, they certainly need not create any more foes.
- Bible study
- Christian living
- Foreign Policy
- International politics
- Legal system
- Life and Death
- Local Politics
- State Politics