Tuesday, May 5, 2015

"You’re just not going to convince me that the right and true and 'courageous' way to stand up to terrorism is to go out of your way to offend hundreds of millions of Muslims who are NOT terrorists, and mean you no harm."

A couple of things. First, I think that Brad is more concerned about the tone and style than he should be. Now, that probably has to do with the fact that Brad is a really nice guy. He's a very polite person. 

If you met him in person and said something that he seriously disagreed with, he probably would just give you a polite smile and let the pitch go by. He wouldn't start big argument with you in a social setting, because it's considered impolite to start political arguments in social settings. He's right about that, too. For the most part, it's a good idea to try and get along with other people. I have that instinct, too, but probably not to the same extent.

For instance, it's probably not the most agreeable thing for a practicing lawyer to have a blog like this and take various positions that I take. I'm sure it makes some people around me (including my wife) uncomfortable at times.

I kind of vacillate between trying to the the go-along, get-along guy and the guy who doesn't care what you think of me. Part of me wants to be the Conventional Guy, with all the conventional thoughts, because that's what advances you in life - especially when you're a lawyer. People want their lawyers to be Buttoned Down People for the most part. They don't want bomb-throwers.

But the other part of me is the bomb-thrower that doesn't care what people think because that part of me isn't seeking the Blessing of Other People. Partly, I think that's me trying to stand independently, and partly, it's me not having respect for some of those Other People because I don't think they've earned the respect.

This go-along, get along mentality is certainly fine, and it has it's place. No one wants to be a social outcast. I don't argue politics at my son's friends three-year-old birthday parties. But there's also a point at which you have to actually stand up for something. If you live in fear of social stigma your entire life, you're going to be easily pushed around. This is why political correctness is actually a powerful force.

There are so many people who are afraid of being thought of as "the wrong class of people" that the Perpetually Offended Army can push them around by telling them things like If you say the word "thug" you're a racist. Someone who's a Conventional Guy doesn't want to be labeled a racist, because that's about the worst thing you can be in the year 2015. Accordingly, the Conventional Guy alters his behavior because he doesn't want to be thought of like that.

Note, it doesn't matter if he's actually a racist or not, and it doesn't matter if the use of the word is appropriate or not. All that matters is that the Perpetually Offended Army can push Conventional Guy around.

So now we have Pamela Gellar and her group who push the envelope of free speech beyond what is tasteful and beyond what is polite into a region that is....uncomfortable for Conventional Guy to support. So when the Perpetually Offended Army says that You can't support this kind of....hate speech! It's just not respectful of other people's religion, Conventional Guys like Brad don't want to be thought of as "the wrong class of people", so they focus on the impolite tone and style of Ms. Gellar's speech as offensive.

And that's the wrong place to focus. Here are the facts.

1. Ms. Gellar and her group of people drew cartoons and publicly displayed them.

2. Men shot at her for this public displaying of cartoons.

3. There is no third fact. That's it. There are no other facts. 

Do we really need to say that drawing cartoon is "inexcusable"? Nope! Because they don't need an excuse to draw cartoons. That's allowed. It may not be the way that Brad chooses to express himself, but Ms. Gellar doesn't need to apologize, explain herself, or have an excuse for anything. She's an American, on American soil, expressing her opinion about someone's religious beliefs and conduct.

And people shot at her for doing so. Shot. At. Her.

It's not hard to figure out which side you should be on. And spare me the "but". You're either for free speech or you're only for speech that doesn't make you uncomfortable. The latter makes you an unprincipled hack.

Do I like it when people burn the American flag to make a statement? No. I find burning the American flag to be distasteful and somewhat un-American. However, I think that attempting to ban flag burning is even more un-American than burning the flag. That's how America works.

Respectability is all fine and good, but at some point you have to decide that you are in favor of certain ideals and principles. If other people don't like your ideals and principles, then screw them. I'm reminded of a quote:
"Do you have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -Winston Churchill
Maybe we should all be a little less afraid of making enemies these days.


  1. A couple of quick points...

    First, mine is not the conventional position. Mine is the harder position to take. On the left and on the right, and certainly in the streets of Paris, the overwhelmingly popular position is Je suis Charlie.

    I go against that grain, and say I am most certainly NOT Charlie.

    I'm the guy whose position makes everyone indignant.

    Another point: This is one of those situations in which someone like me gets hit with the "blaming the victim" accusation. You know, like when you say the beautiful young woman shouldn't be jogging through a bad part of town in a skimpy outfit late at night. At that point, you're accused of defending potential rapists and blaming the victim. No, I think rapists are candidates for suspending the "cruel and unusual" prohibition in the Constitution. But that doesn't change the fact that if you don't want to BE a victim, don't put yourself in that vulnerable situation.

    In this case, there's an additional factor -- you're not just waving a flag at a bull, you're going out of your way to insult that which is most sacred to millions of people who don't intend ever to do anything wrong. You really have to be a jerk to do that.

    This is made worse by the fact that you have no point to make. It's all about being offensive, period.

    Another point: Go ahead and flatter yourself that you're being brave, daring the terrorists to come on and get you for being such a jerk. This completely ignores the fact that you are putting other people's lives at risk. From the security guard who had to defend these jerks in Texas to innocent bystanders at riots in Pakistan, your actions can have completely unpredictable consequences on other people -- people who did not choose to be a jerk along with you.

    Finally, I have nothing but contempt for this whole "bravery" pose. Imagine it the other way: Say terrorists say they'll kill you if you DON'T draw pictures of Mohammed. In other words, they're trying to make you do a bad thing. REFUSING to do so would be proper courage in the service of a worthwhile cause. Being a big, fat jerk because some lunatic threatens to kill you if you act like a big, fat jerk does NOT make you a hero. It just makes you a big, fat, STUPID jerk.

    See what I mean?

    Not you, of course. I mean the cartoonists.

    Because I don't think for a minute that you would ever do what they do...

    Another way to put it...

    Just because someone threatens to kill you if you do a really rotten, stupid, pointless thing does not ennoble the rotten, stupid, pointless thing. You still shouldn't do it.

    The threat of violence just confuses everybody....

  2. I submitted two drawings for this contest to AFDI. I do not see how anyone can properly characterize my drawings or the drawings which won as being offensive. Have you seen Bosch's drawing which won? What is offensive about it? Here I provide for you a drawing of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam (>_<) . This drawing is more than sufficient for a Muslim to kill me- what is offensive about it? If you research the requirements to enter the contest you will see that the rules expressly forbade any egregiously offensive depiction of the Prophet.

    This exercise in free speech is quite beneficial as apparently our population is so pitifully ignorant they do not understand what free speech really is Perhaps we can cure this ignorance.

    I think we need a draw Mohammad contest in every city, every crossroads all across America and it needs to be held every week. I will enter every one of these contests I can because I will not submit.

    "The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." Thomas More

    Hampton's Redshirt

  3. Sort of wanted to think this over a bit as I am not a Brad fan. Bottom line, IMHO, is that nothing anyone says or writes gives me the justification to kill them or even deliver an old fashioned ass whuppin. Brad's thoughts are, again IMHO, a significant way down the despicable path of "if she wasn't wearing those clothes, she wouldn't have been raped" school of thought.....