When Does Protest Become Intimidation?

Does putting a happy face on a call to protest make it okay? I'm wondering.

It is no secret that Walmart is not the most popular retail outlet around. Personally I don't think it's presence does as much damage to local businesses as it's detractors would like us to believe. That, however, is not to be argued today.

What is, concerns the tactics  of those who  oppose them. The current flap is one in Washington, D.C.  I found it interesting that the web site for this opposition has a rap song decrying Walmart. Perhaps that's appropriate for Washington D.C.   I just don't particularly like the connotation.

More than that, it's asking protesters to congregate at the home of the developer. This is where I fear a perfectly legal protest and expression of free speech may cross the line to intimidation. One's home is usually considered sacrosanct. At least it should be.

To have hoards of angry people invade your neighborhood to protest strikes me as intimidation. Not only for the developer in this case, but also, maybe even more so, his neighbors. There can always be unexpected consequences of large, uncontrolled, angry people gathering.

That the organizers have some awareness of this would seem obvious with the placement of the smiley face in their flier's target. A recognition of last week's events in Tucson. Yet it remains on the web inviting anyone who would like to copy and distribute it.

Behavior does not change over night, but I wish ours would get a move on. We've become so confrontational, aggressive and self righteous, it's no wonder the rest of the world sees us as a severely wounded nation. It has become so invasive one wonders where we'll find the leadership capable of extracting us from what we've done to ourselves. Or have allowed to be done.

I hope the police are aware of this protest. I hope they'll be a silent presence to make sure the letter of the law is obeyed. If it is not I hope there are real consequences.

That's what's happening to us you know. Consequences of a too permissive society. Perhaps a collective trip to the woodshed is what we need, because we're still not getting it.

This Is Worse Than Cross Hairs!

Okay. Which is worse? Inciting violence by using everyday expressions, albeit in not always the nicest of tones, or comparing groups of people with the most vile that ever existed?

ABC News Jonathon Karl reports on an outburst by a House Democrat comparing Republicans to the Nazis and Joseph Goebbels in particular. For those of you who weren't taught history, he was their chief propagandist.

Representative Steven Cohen, D TN, is Jewish. He is passionate about health care. Obviously he does not want the bill tampered with, what's more repealed. However, to accuse the Republicans of being Nazi like and repeating "lies" in hope the public will en masse begin to believe them is going beyond the pale.

While it is not enough to incite violence, the name calling is assassination of another sort. Character assassination. It has no place in civil discourse. Certainly less than being the "target" of it!

We can't say Squaw, Spic, Raghead, Burrhead, Beaner, Kike, Wop or Nigger without someone getting up in arms. Okay, we get it. I understand. I really do. I remember sitting in a restaurant one evening listening to the most vile of Polish jokes being told at the next table. I finally asked Hub to have the maitre d ask them to tone it down. I found it extremely offensive. Polish blood does run through my veins. It was hurtful. So I do understand.

Those were but jokes of an offensive nature. To hurl such insults at people who don't agree with you is antagonistic and immature. Unfortunately immaturity seems to be running rampant these days.

Why is it we bloggers are sitting out here in cyber space discussing it in a most civil manner and no one is hearing? Is it because we are neither seen nor heard? Don't bet on it.

Hannity Is Like A Soap Opera

I don't watch soaps anymore but when I did, I could miss a month worth of episodes and return to the same story line in which maybe a day, if that, had passed. Watching Hannity reminds me of the same thing. And Greta comes in a close second. They latch onto a talking point and won't let it go even after the news cycle is long gone.

Right now it's rhetoric and the war references. Hannity cannot get off the topic of cross hairs and targets and the blaming of Conservatives and Sarah Palin for the Tucson shootings. Everyone has agreed that politics and it's language had nothing to do with it. Yet on and on he goes.

Everyone is trying to side step how we talk and it isn't going to work. Remember "Freedom Fries"?

Besides, its not the words themselves, but how they're used. I can say my back is "killing" me because I'm talking about - me. If I say in reference to something Hub did that upset me, I can no longer say, "I'm going to kill him!" That's a threat.

It's time to get over it and get on with dialogue in our natural manner. If we spend all our time watching which words we use we'll end up saying nothing.

Gunning for success. Sales targets. His comment cut me like a knife. Stabbing pain. Explosive situation. The show was a bomb. The tornado left things looking like a war zone. He had it and finally blew up. It's not political rhetoric, it's how we talk.

A kinder, more gentle Congress needs a less, excuse me, bombastic tone, not words.

Let's see if the debate can be razor sharp without hanging the opposition out to dry and let's extend the challenge to  the media.

I aim to watch, that's for sure. I'll shoot for about a month before everything returns to the normal nasty. Especially in the media. Regardless of which words they choose.

Guns Are Only Dangerous If You Use Them

With all the talk going on about gun rights since the Tucson shootings, I was surprised to see a headline about Wisconsin's plans to expand gun owner's rights. It seems with the change of parties in charge, Republicans now, the legislature will finally win out over the former governor's veto.

Did you know, too, that Illinois is the only other state that forbids carrying a concealed weapon? Apologies to Tom Brokaw who said he'd feel uncomfortable in an Arizona bar because of their wide open rules, it seems he shouldn't have singled them out. Granted Arizona and Vermont have less stringent requirements than other states but a concealed weapon is just that and no one has to tell you whether or not one is being carried.  Of course that's what concealed is all about.  Secrecy.

I often wonder why we Americans are so fascinated with guns. I can understand hunters, but for ordinary citizen like myself, I don't get it. That being said, I'm considering taking the course mainly to get a feel for what it's all about.

I remember having a security system rep brag about the fact he wears his weapon even when he goes to church. I had a hair dresser, a woman, who bragged about "carrying". When we had a couple of teenage boys walking around town carrying guns, because they were allowed, I wondered about their parenting. When I commented to a gun store owner I was uneasy knowing how many people carry guns, he asked me why. I had no good answer other than a why not back at him. It was lame.

His view is they most are perfectly honest, sane citizens who are exercising a right. Still, why?

I guess being able to doesn't mean you have to. Yet considering the mind set in today's America, many feel safer doing so than not. I think there is an underlying thread here of which I can't quite get a grasp.

The why. But the laws are what they are. I just hope the requirements for getting those permits include proof of instruction on how to use a weapon properly. And hope for the best.

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Did you know CBS is concerned about Charlie Sheen, star of the hit Two and a Half Men? It's his behavior of course. Assaulting his own his wife, trashing a New York hotel room, downing straight shots of vodka while entertaining porn queens in Vegas for a convention. That probably should have stayed in Vegas. But it didn't. It made the papers.

I expect one day to read where Charlie is found dead from an overdose of excess. Especially since he's 45 and shows no sign of slowing down.

I would guess CBS would be concerned by their bad boy's behavior. After all, he has children. A family. Sort of.

In my world such behavior would have gotten most people a substantial stay behind bars or in rehab. Real rehab, not Hollywood style. But his world is different than mine.

CBS and his producer, Warner Brothers Television, tell us the situation is complicated for Charlie. He goes to work and does his his job extremely well. Of course there are no plans to cancel the program.

I wonder. I don't watch the show because I don't care for Charlie Sheen. Is it just a one man show? It seems to me there must be another man and a half at the very least. Actors are replaced in hit series all the time.

Whoops! I just hit on it. It's a hit! It even increased it's audience by 2% last year! M-o-n-e-y! Why didn't I think of that right off the bat!

Could the reason CBS and Warner Brothers are "concerned" about Charlie is because they're afraid they might lose their star? My guess that outweighs their concern for his well being.

With concern like that, who needs it. Charlie certainly doesn't. But at 45 it's unlikely he'll change. It's a shame. One more life wasted so that others may profit.

I'll stick with my world, thanks.