R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Miss me with that BS

Whenever I hear people talking blithely about their respect for the Office of the President  and the part that that respect plays in their attendance at or watching of the inauguration to end all inaugurations, I want to cuss, loud and long.

Help me to understand what this "respect for the office (of the president)" is. And after you've explained what it is, please tell me where it's been since January 20, 2009 cuz I'm pretty sure I ain't seen it in a while. 

To my mind, if you're respecting the office you also should be, at the very least, respectful of the office holder. This was not the case during the Obama years so I'm beginning to wonder whether respect rights only accrue if the office holder is Republican because for the last eight years, respect surely has been in very short supply.

And no, I am not saying that you can't challenge the office holder's thinking; his/her policy prescriptions; his/her comportment in the office if his/her behavior is egregious, but you sure as hell don't write a letter to an enemy state asking them to refuse a deal (and dancing damn close to breaking the law) deliberately and publicly undermining my guy and then later demand that I respect yours. Nuh uh. That ain't gonna work.

Is it "respectful of the office" to set on a course to deny people access to the polls (through which that office is obtained) on arbitrary or racially motivated grounds? Y'all been doing that for generations and yet now you want to tell me about respect? Remember North Carolina's Supreme Court voter ID decision?

Is it "respectful of the office" to gerrymander the hell out of districts, thereby making one side's victory assured irrespective of voters' wishes? Hell, that ain't even respectful of fair play, but now you want to tell me about respecting the office of the president? Nah. 

What part of meeting on Inauguration Night to collude (yeah, I said 'collude') to frustrate  every good faith effort at working across the aisle, can we describe as "respect for the office"? 

What part of rejecting a health insurance purchase mandate (which was an idea that came out of your own people at the conservative Heritage Foundation), translates to "respect for the office"? You reject your own idea to make a point about rejecting the president. Oh yeah, that sounds like R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Your guy (45) questioned the president's place of birth - steadily, loudly and mendaciously - for 90% of his presidency, but now you want my "respect for the office"? Yeah, y'all can kiss my entire Black arse with that respect talk. 

You demand "respect for the office" but you never respectfully allowed the outgoing president to perform the job the way he/she believed was best. You were free to argue or disagree, and you did. You were free to mount a vigorous debate against the officeholder's policies, and you did. But you lied, lied, lied and lied some more to sell your snake oils to the unsuspecting, ignorant masses. Claiming to "respect the office" while behaving in the ways in which certain groups have behaved these last 8 years, is anything but "respect" for either the office or the officeholder. Such "respect" is but an empty veneration of the title. Empty. Entirely devoid of meaning.

Frankly, I'm of the view that all the current calls for respect are a neat way of saying, "Respect us never mind how we disrespected you! That's all in the past". Well I, for one, am not here for it.

Respect is far more than just using the word in a sentence. Respect is a series of actions and little to nothing that has occurred in the last 8 years bespeaks respect, IMHO, so don't be expecting my respect any day soon. Respect is earned and your broke behinds ain't have a clue how to start earning.

In the meantime, 'respect'? For this guy? 

DJT tweet, on MLK weekend no less

Miss me with that BS. Please. 

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.