It's looking like the man being held for ramming a a car into a crowd of people in Charlottesville, VA killing one and injuring many is -- oh, surprise -- a sad-sack loser who may have lived with his Mom after washing out of Army basic training. And it appears he was some kind of armchair Nazi, which jibes with his intended victims.
While I'm careful to use the appropriate sort of hypothetical language -- innocence is presumed until guilt is proven in court -- there's little doubt he was the man behind the wheel.
I'm only incidentally interested in the "thoughtcrime" aspect of his crime, since the embrace of a half-baked philosophy for losers that got slapped down hard the only time it ever managed to get much of a foothold* is, in fact, legal under the First Amendment. You don't go plowing into a crowd of people -- or even only one person -- with an automobile, period.†
The ability to peacefully assemble for whatever reason is an inherent right. Not all reasons are especially nice or noble and letting it happen does not constitute approval: society doesn't operate under Robert's Rules of Order and silence should not be mistaken for consent.
For that matter, counter-protesting shouldn't be mistaken for assault -- and vice-versa; punching someone might be sincere criticism but it is not protected speech. But you know what even the commies didn't do? --None of them committed vehicular mayhem and murder.
Wave signs and shout all you like, for whatever bullshit you want to get before the public; being able to do so is a feature -- not a bug! -- of a free society. But initiating force is a crime, initiating deadly force a particularly odious crime, especially against your fellow-citizens engaged in the free expression of their own views.
I've noticed some of my Facebook friends being careful to condemn both sides. Yeah well-- Most people's political views and philosophies offend me, since they generally come down to ways in which the person expressing them thinks other people ought to be pushed around for some supposed greater good. I hate that idea. So what? I'm not the boss of the inside of their head, or of the crap they scribble on a placard, post on social media or shout from streetcorners. I'm not a hall monitor, this is adult life. You don't go beating up people who aren't a physical threat; you don't go ramming into them with a car, or shooting at them or-- That is obvious, basic stuff; there's no need to be "even-handed" about it, it's immoral; it's a crime.
Here's to a fair and speedy trial and a quick, clean end; or at least a couple of lifetimes in prison. There were a lot of people in Charlotteville, VA. One of them has unequivocally demonstrated he can't be trusted around others.
____________________________________
* It does amaze me to see anything past the "...But they sure had kewl tanks," level of appreciation. Communism has the excuse of high-sounding ideals and over a century of good PR from the credulous. But Nazism has stunk on ice from the outset, profoundly and expressly incompatible with American culture, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's an either/or, public libraries on one side and book-burnings on the other.
† This is, of course, going to prompt one of those supposedly-awkward hypotheticals about "What if it's Pol Pot, Stalin and Jack the Ripper with flamethrowers and they're running towards a group of kindergartners?" Tellya what, when that happens, you can call me up collect and I'll advise you. Until then, please don't go wandering around without a minder, since you plainly have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.
To make it worse, the original permitted (and then canceled before it started) demonstration was to protest removal of a monument to R. E. Lee. He may have been on the losing side, but the war IS part of our history and he WAS a hero in it - and after by encouraging his troops to take the pledge and rejoin the union, making him a great statesman as well as a great general.
ReplyDeleteIt was the progressives/BLM/Antifa crowd agitating for the removal. It was the lovers of history (mostly) demonstrating for its preservation. The fact that RE Lee is also a "hero" for the KKK is unfortunate, but literally just an overlap of circumstance. Why the neo-NAZIs were there I have no idea - maybe just shared interests with the KKK?
Bottom line is some peaceful, 1st Amendment exercising history preserving folk got caught between the "lets rewrite history" crowd and some far fringe of their own side (that they don't support, and that doesn't really support them, they just share a "hero") and are now being painted with a broad brush.
If Antifa hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been a riot. If the KKK and neo-NAZIs hadn't been there but Antifa was, this story would be completely different news (or not, as the press is lately, but that's another topic).
But if the city fathers had told the BLM agitators a year ago, "Look, RE Lee may not be your fave, but he's a legit part of our history and he IS a war hero and statesman, and he's staying" the whole thing would never have happened.
"Lovers of history," would those be the guys marching with torches and broken-cross flags, then?
ReplyDeleteIt's a city park. City decides what goes in it and what it is called. There's a mechanism for public input to that specific decision and, interestingly enough, it's not inviting several thousand Klan and Nazi idiots plus their fellow-travelers and the commies who like fighting with them.
Also, you're invoking the "If she hadn't worn that short skirt, she'd'a never been raped" defense. It's bullshit. Peaceful assembly is a civil right -- for nice people, for not-nice people, for damned fools, for anyone. Rioting is not a right -- also for anyone.
There's a name for people who make excuses for Nazis. It's not a nice name.
I don't like Quislings.
I'm sorry Roberta - I'm not as fine a writer as you. I am in no way making excuses for the NAZI group(s) that were there. And I based a part of my argument on incomplete information.
ReplyDeleteHere's the background. I'm a student of history. General Lee may have fought for the losing side in the Civil War, but he was a legit hero - in the Mexican War and for the US Gov at Harper's Ferry apprehending John Brown. He was a fine strategist and leader in a number of battles during the Civil War and his tactics are still studied at West Point and other places. He also made mistakes (Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, for example). And he was a Stateman in telling his men to stack arms, take the pledge of allegiance and return to their homes in peace.
Based on that, arguments to remove a memorial to him by the progressives/BLM/SPLC/ACLU crowd are (1) protected by the 1st Amendment and (2) Orwellian attempts to rewrite history.
OTOH, the KKK wishing to lead a rally to protect said statue is disgusting. It is mere coincidence that their hero is also one of mine (for entirely different reasons).
Bottom line, preserving the statue is a good cause, the groups there to rally for that were NOT - and were not truly there to preserve the monument, either. Why the NAZI group was there makes no sense in that context.
Now here's what really happened in the lead-up. The group that organized the rally was NOT a historical preservation society. I've had a conversation with a friend in the area that met with the organizers, found out their "plan" and bowed out. The actual leader of the rally (his name is on the permit) is NOT a KKKer or a member of any historical society. He is (recently) a member of a neo-NAZI group. He is ALSO a past member (and leader) in the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In other words, he's a rabble rouser who was looking to start a riot with no legit reason to be there (his stated one on his permit makes no sense given his background.
So he was using the removal of the monument as an excuse to hold a rally to spark a riot. AND the Antifa/BLM crowd came to counter protest, with the intent being to spark a riot. Both sides are idiots who got what they deserved - except the police should have arrested a lot more of them for assault and/or enticement to riot.
Up until the point where one psycho decided to use his car as a weapon. And it turns out he was truly crazy (with a record to prove it). The fact that he was active in the neo-NAZI group is incidental. He could just as easily been an Antifa.
So my take is (mostly in agreement with yours, just less well stated):
1. The statue deserves to be there
2. Legit discussion through .gov channels can be made regarding its continued presence there.
3. "rallys" for or against are protected speech, as long as they are peaceful speech and assembly as protected in the 1st Amendment.
4. Persons at the rally(s) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights are also protected
5. .Gov has a responsibility to keep protesters and counter-protesters separated, especially if both sides appear to be "spoiling for a fight". (as both sides apparently were, and as has been alleged the local PD did not do - it pushed them out of the park and together in the streets - all but guaranteeing fights to break out).
6. No one on either side has the right to take a swing at a cop OR someone from the other side - with fist or club.
With the latest news (especially the background of the rally organizer) it looks like the same forces may be behind Antifa/anti-Trump protests, OWS, BLM, Confederate monument/flag removal efforts, etc. Is it possible Soros and company are paying BOTH sides to stir up trouble, just to add fuel to the police state?
"The statue deserves to be there," really? Statues have rights? Does the city government not have the right to determine the contents of their parks, the names of their parks? Who elects that government, if not the voters who live there?
ReplyDeleteNo one "rewrote history." No books were burned. It's a statue. Pigeons crap on it. Kids ignore it. History remains.
If people wanted the statue to remain, they should've got their butts to City Council meetings and argued for it. And it would have helped a lot if they were local.
Like Gen. Lee, Mr. Soros is just one man. Sure, he's got money, he's got helpers; but like Lee, he's on the wrong side of history. Using him as the core of a "devil theory" is just the same old, same old, from people who fear their own ideas are too weak and worthless to prevail. Freedom isn't weak or worthless -- so what are you really peddling, or what's been peddled to you that you haven't looked at carefully enough?