postal scrotum

Scott writes in re: Richard's Peking Duck post on the "end of democracy."

Hi Kevin,

Re: "Peking Duck has a worrying post about "the end of democracy." Take special note of the "update" section. That's the part that disturbed me."

Spoken like a true outsider (no offense, man, but you haven't seen the damage done by some Oregon (Democrat-voting) protestors). Keeping folks who make a spectacle of themselves out of the venue was the prudent thing to do. Maybe not the nicest, but then, that's why decent people dress appropriately for the event they will be attending.

The Left (especially in Portland, Oregon) loves to whine when people don't like them. But since they turn simple 15-block parades into store-window-smashing adventures requiring tear-gas... discretion is in order.

Make no mistake, there is a good chance (despite what they say) that the women involved would have been causing a commotion at the event if given a chance. Even if they didn't (or weren't going to) the choice to remove them was made by security (read: the police), and in the interest in public safety the women were removed. Period. Nothing scary/draconian/Orwellian to see...despite what the big, bad newspaper reporter told you.

If it was really about the First Amendment - then the rights of the majority of the audience (Bush backers) would have taken precedence. That's the way the majority rules, right? But it's not really about the First Amendment, or the Leftist idea of Democracy/Majority-Rule/Mob-Rule.

The issue is inappropriate behavior. It's Bush's event and his time. If he (or more correctly, the police) think someone will be trouble then they are removed. It's not about the guests' Constitutional Rights...it's about not acting ape-shit crazy in a large crowd around a heavily-guarded man. A man who DOESN'T HAVE TO STOP AND LISTEN TO EVERY LEFTIST RETARD WHO SHOWS UP.

The Left in Oregon has a poor record of keeping their child-like emotions in check. When The Right protested Clinton, not much happened: small crowd, some signs, and a couple police cars outside the speaking venue (which was closed-off anyway).

But when The Left protests Bush, dangerous mob-behavior rules. The last protest I got stuck in involved stopping all traffic downtown. When the police correctly beat a few protestors... you should have heard the mis-placed outrage.

I should have been this eloquent a few days ago. It was discussed a little bit on a Portland, Oregon blog. Here's a link if you want to follow that discussion:

Link

_Scott

Kangmi writes in about Kerry and morals:

Dear Kevin,

Your recent posts on John Kerry and moral mandates have addressed a dilemma I am experiencing. Through a nosy pollster, I recently learned that my state is one of those with a defense of marriage proposition on the ballot. She asked me in five different ways how I was going to vote on the measure; five different times, I told her, "I don't know."

If I weren't a Christian who occasionally has ideas about homosexuals and homosexual behavior, I wouldn't be in this dilemma. On the one hand, I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong for a Christian (as are other behaviors, but that's the one I'm talking about here. We could gossip about others later). On the other, I don't think that the government has any business denying homosexuals certain rights. And if I had a third hand, I'd say that the government cannot force Christian institutions to hire practicing homosexuals (unless those institutions are agreeable to such hiring).

Unfortunately, Christians often have a way of talking about homosexuals and homosexuality that includes no nuances. And in a year of high political heat, nuances aren't nearly as popular as good old black and white.

Kangmi

_