Joe Nation wrote:Finn has been right about two things in the past few posts:
Quote:Neither the actions of the Bridge Assoc nor Imus's bosses, however, were violations of anyone's First Amendment rights.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Joe Nation wrote:Bush supporters remain clueless as to the depth of the resentment his administration has generated around the world.
Ask anyone outside the USA.
Joe(Guantanamo)Nation
Not really, we just don't care.
But he is only right about the first one in a strictly legal sense, not in the sense of what most Americans see as their right of expression, especially political expression. Deluded souls that they are, every time they sing "...land of the free... ." they think that's actually true. It
is true until you cross some line and offend somebody - the supporters of Mr. Bush, his war et al or a group of basketball players. (Isn't it ironic that in both of the instances, the 'perpetrators' were trying to be funny?) Jokes are as dangerous as guns.) Then you, the speaker of offense, must pay a cultural price which usually, not always, boils down to what I like to call the "Who's picking on who? rule:
The smaller a person is who is picked on by a bigger person, the bigger the penalty the bigger person must pay. (See Imus.)
The bridge players (small) didn't pick on anyone smaller, they picked on Bush. Those offended were a few for whom any fun, especially political, is verboten at such affairs and Bush backers whom, despite Finn being right about them not caring about the sensibilities of the rest of the world, do get upset when they hear or see dissent from their views. They wouldn't have made a single huff if the ladies had held up a sign saying "We love our President." or even "Jesus loves George."
And that's where the folks in the USA who believe they are free and the folks around the world who believe that Americans are free see the hypocrisy of this whole small sad situation.
"Make a list." "Whose idea was it?" "Confess" "Sign this that I have written."
Cripes, man, it was a joke.
Doesn't anyone have any sense of perspective in the Bridge world? Shouldn't someone just said to them "Hey, that was out of line. Please don't do it again." They would have mumbled 'sorry' and the whole thing would have been done with.
Instead, mostly because those supposedly uncaring Bush backers really like drama, just like their heros, the situation will be dealt with in the harshest way possible. In San Francisco yet.
Which brings us to the reverse of "Who's picking on Who?"
If a small person picks on a big person and the big person, or his representatives, reacts in a stupidly harsh manner, it is the big person and his representatives who end up on the short end of the admiration stick.
Joe(then they wonder cluelessly why no one seems to like them)Nation
What a lot of nonsense.
This is a Nation of Laws, and the legal application of the First Amendment is hardly some hyper-technical method of depriving Americans of their native rights.
As is typical of you and your confreres, you would invest in the "small person" some sacred right and power that inherently trumps that of the "big person"
The Uni-bomber was a "small person" and so was MLK's murderer. Whomever was responsible for the 2001 Anthrax attacks was a "small person," and so is the clown who stands on a street corner screaming that Jews are ruining our country.
The women Bridge players were "small people," but the US Bridge Assoc is hardly a monolithic faceless force. I know you believe that Bush and Company forced the Assoc to punish these heroic small people, but this is nothing more than an extension of your hysteria
Also typical, you transfer the actions of small or big people to George W Bush if it suits your predetermined bent.
The government didn't crack down on these "small" women, a "small" association did. This did not violate their First Amendment rights.
If some sing patriotic songs that declare their freedom, and they therefore believe they are free to do whatever they please, they are "small" minded people.
