What are you people up to?

So Glen Beck has had his rally.  Bully for him. Pun definitely intended.

I guess what troubles me is the tone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even Glen Beck.  Everyone is entitled to even be hateful.  But as much as I get the whole, 'freedom of speech' bit, when we say things and take a tone that is divisive and downright nasty, we need to be careful.  That goes for both Beck the bully and the Palin the puerile.

I don't mind that you don't agree with the President, but don't also 'repugiate' (Sarah's word for repudiate) the consequences of your words.  There are people out there who are angry, frightened and maybe a little desperate.  And they all have the right to own a gun.  Those are not the people you want to be revving up with anti-government, 'reload' rhetoric.  It's all well and good (it's neither 'well' nor 'good' but that's the expression) to say what you want to say, but you don't also get to distance yourself from the consequences of your sayings.

A Youtube clip of people at the DC rally on Saturday 28 August, 2010, showed one man saying that he expected the President to be coming for his gun (why only he could tell you).  He went on to say that the President could have it, one bullet at a time.  Now, I get that he is free to say whatever he will, but that constitutes a threat does it not?  And that is inappropriate.  It matters not how little love you have for a person.  Making threats, how ever veiled is just not on.  Moreover, Sarah and Glen can hardly pretend that they bear no part in the animus that seems to be taking over the political discourse. They are not solely to blame, but certainly, some of the blame has their names on it.  Sarah in particular, with her penchant for her 'reload' utterance, needs to be particularly careful.  Should anything happen to anyone in power, from the lowliest State representative to the highest elected official, she should be aware that there will be calls for investigations and her precious career as an 'influencer' will come to the end it so richly deserves.

I have no problem with Sarah and Glen having a perspective.  I have no problem with them wishing to 'restore American honor'.  I just wish their perspective were based on (i) something approaching reality; (ii) something approaching rationality; (iii) or perhaps, something approaching some sense that we all matter.  Where were the calls for the restoration of 'honor' when the Bush Administration was using waterboarding to get information out of enemy combatants?  Where were the calls for the restoration of honor when the servicemen and women headed off to the trumped up war?  Where were the calls for the restoration of honor when Ret. Gen. Colin Powell himself had to distance himself from the Bush Administration?  No call for restoration then, or when Bush let the people of New Orleans drown at home.  Suddenly now though, with a man of color in the White House, and an effort afoot to give everyone health care, now we need to restore honor?  I just hope that while they are busy 'restoring' stuff that they please try not to restore second class citizenship for those of us who don't look like them.  Or perhaps that is precisely the thing they wish to restore?  One certainly has to wonder.

I get that the notion of social justice makes Glen and Sarah nervous.  To them and others, it seems to signal that 'others' might actually gain access either to the corridors of power or the halls of education or the wards of hospitals.  It fascinates me that conservative (Christians) would swallow this un-Christian thinking that seeks to limit others' access to the means of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but clearly my understanding of Christ and Christianity is somehow flawed.  That's ok.  I like my way better.