Two men, one woman

As much as I would have loved to have left my last post up at the top of the blog, and as much as I really appreciate everyone who played along, unfortunately a story broke that just made me sick, and that I feel I must comment on.

By now I'm sure most of you are familiar with the following video:


Now... I'm going to describe this as objectively and as neutrally as my stomach will allow:

Two large men, grabbed a very small woman, (wearing glasses, no less! hollywood couldn't have cast her that well!) wrestled her to the ground, and stepped on her.

Those are facts, BTW, that are not in denial. They are plain for all to see. No one can look at this attrocity and conclude anything less.  What is also not in duspute in the these large, burly men, who look like they outwieghed her at by least three-to-one, were supporters of TeaParty seperatist candidate, Rand Paul.  Also not in dispute is that the woman, Lauren Valle, is a member of MoveOn.org, a Progressive Political organization that is opposed to Rand Paul and the Tea Party's agenda.  These are facts, that are undistputed and which do not depend upon any party afiliation or political ideology to accept.

Now... there is something else which, until now, I would have though thought could also be universally accepted, regardless of Political Party or Ideology: That violence perpetrated by men, against women is WRONG. Period.

Apparantly this maxim, which is self-evidenct to me, is not universally held by the Right, the Republicans, the Tea Party, or the Conservatives.  Do I say this merely on account of the two hulking rednecks in the Rand Paul tea-shirts? Not at all.  For the true position of the Conservative movement, I'll defer to it's very voice.  Here is Rush Limbaugh, rationalizing this attrocity:



Now... let's take a look at the mentality at work here:

1) The Secret Service would have done the same thing if someone approached Obama.
2) The man stepped on her SHOUDLERS, not her HEAD
and
3) She's a "radcial," "liberal," "professional agitator," who [has protested things before.]

Well... let's start with... the Secret Service.

For those of you who are unfaimilar with that organization, they are an officially sanctioned arm of the Federal, Untied States Government responsible for, among other things, the safety of the President.  You know... as opposed to an unruly mob of violent rednecks.  And I've seen an awful lot of footage of both CANDIDATE Obama, and PRESIDENT Obama being close enough to huge crowds to shake the hands of every person, three rows deep. 

Do you know what I've NEVER seen?

OBAMA'S SECRET SERVICE DETAIL TACKLING A PROTESTER AND KICKING THEM WHILE THEY'RE DOWN!

I've never seen that!  And you have footage of it?  I'd be keen to watch, but I'll simply go back to the more apt point: Authorized Agents of the Federal Government vs. Unruly inbreeds!

Second Point:

Thug #2 stepped on (or "put his foot on" in Limbaugh-speak) her SHOULDERS, not her head.  Well... seeing as how neither of these genetic defectives were authorized agents of law enforcment, and that she had made no violent gestures herself, the instant that they even laid one finger on her, they were guilty of tort assault, at a minimum.  By the time she hit the ground, they were guilty of criminal assault and battery.  Where they stepped on her is immaterial.  THAT they stepped on her is immaterial!  And even "stepped on her" is, by itself, a pretty forgiving description.  I'd say "kicked her while she was on the ground" is a bit more accurate. Take a look.  That fact that it happened to be the bottom of his foot that he drove into her prone body does not magically turn a kick into a "stepping on."  If that were the case, Chuck Norris spent most of his acting career "stepping on" people!

Finally:

She was a  "radcial," "liberal," "professional agitator."

Translation: THE BITCH HAD IT COMING.
 
That's it folks.  He can make the same Glenn Beck-style exculpatory claim about not condoning violence, BUT... whenever there is a "BUT"... he can not at the same time also be making a serious claim to be condemning it either!  In fact, there IS NO condmenation of it here! At all! Not a single word of it! He's says he doesn't condone it, even against against a "radical, liberal woman" (why is that even relevant?) and then spends several minutes RATIONALIZING IT!  And what is his rationale?  That she's been at protests before.
 
I cannot make any more clear a translation of Limbaugh's remarks from conserva-speak to english:
 
THE BITCH HAD IT COMING.
 
And just for the record, I cannot state this any more strongly or clearly: I would absolutely demand that anyone who acted this way towards Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman or Chistine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, be arrested and punnished to the fullest extent of the law. And I would utterly condemn any such action, on no uncertain terms. It is thuggery, and it is criminal, and it has no place in this Country, or our political process, regardless of the political ideology of the victim. To believe otherwise is profoundly un-American.  And fine, so maybe when it's against the candidate herself it's different. Fine. How about Jenny McCarthy?  Would I forgive or even attempt to rationlize any violenece against even a despicable woman like her, who has the blood of dead children on her hands, due to her her anti-vaccine crusade?

NO. Absolutely not, no way, no how. Not for one single moment. I would not condone it; I would not rationalize it; and I would have the prepetrators punnished to the fullest extent of the law.

Becasue violence against women is wrong. Period.

Any attempt to rationalize this kind of behavior is a clear indication that the speaker DOES NOT believe in America, DOES NOT believe in free speech, DOES NOT believe in civil discourse and debate, DOES NOT believe in Democracy, DOES NOT believe in LAW and ORDER, and DOES NOT believe even in BASIC HUMAN CIVILITY.

Thes men in this video are scumbags. Period. And any attempts to rationalize their behavior is pure scumbaggery. Period.

----------shifting gears------------

Just in the interest of not being a hypocrite - something you just won't get from the Right, BTW - I'd like to take a look at every TeaBagger's favorite malingerer, Kenneth Gladney.

Here's the tape:


Now... I'll be the first to admit that, unlike the video showing the attack on Valle, you can't see shit in this video. (Not that this has stopped the Right from trying to milk it for all its propaganda value) But here's what I see:

1) I see two men pulling Gladney off of an SEIU member, who was on the ground, under him.  That's the guy who's later seen holding his shoulder in pain.

2) I see Gladney, in the tan shirt, end up on the ground, as a result of the attmept to seperate the two men, after which he IMMEDIATELY GETS BACK UP.  So he knows where he can stick stick his sob story about "still being in pain" from the "injuries" he sustained.  Looks to me like the SEIU guy (in the purple tee) by far got the worst of it.

Because do you know what I don't see?

Well for one thing, I don't see Gladney getting kicked while he's on the ground. The way the Right describes it, you'd think he was Rodney King!  (Of course... they all lined up agianst King, but maybe if he voted Republican it would have been different.)

Know what else I don't see? Unlike in the attack on Valle, anyone throwing Gladney to the ground!  Gladney only ends up on the ground becasue the guy pulling him back TRIPS on the guy who was ON THE GROUND!  (You know, the other guy that Gladney was on top of?)

Another difference?  Gladney got up and started SHOUTING again! Whereas Valle stayed in a fetal position in hopes that she wouldn't get KICKED anymore!

And there one more thing I don't see: WHO STARTED THE FIGHT.

And that's pretty improtant.  But fine, let's assume for, the moment, that it really was the SEIU guy.  Does that magically make these two incidents the same?

Umm... NO!

Unfortunate? Yes, absolutely.  There is no (or at least there should be no) place in our political discourse for violence.

But are they the same?  Well... you tell me:

One man, versus one man of roughly equal size.

Two very large men, versus one very small woman.

That sound the same to you?  Would you put the equal money down on the outcome of both of those altercations? Of course not.

It ain't the same thing at all, and not by a damned sight!

But if the SEIU guy DID start it?  I'd still throw his dumb ass in jail for it!

Because, BTW... did you notice?  I did not spend one single word trying to rationalize the actions of the SEIU guy.  I was willing to completely give the Right the benefit of the doubt on this, and they STILL basicaly have nothing. And that's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives: It comes down to having PRINCIPLES.

And no one who attempts to rationalize what happened in the Valle video has them.

Period.