Friday, July 29, 2016

Why Do People Post Online Comments If They Don't Want To Be Quoted?

Proud to stand with peace candidate Dr. Jill Stein in Portland, Maine.
I am being criticized all over the place this morning. My blog post about the alleged lack of racial tension in Lewiston has drawn lots of responses, including the demand from an online commenter that I remove her name and words from my blog. She has vowed never to comment on a post of mine again. As she is youngish, it's probably a good thing that she consider that once our words are out there on social media platforms like facebook, we should be prepared to stand by them. 

Which leads me to the words that I need to stand by this morning.

A political acquaintance in Maine, former ACLU executive director and Senate candidate Shenna Bellows, was offended by a comment I posted on her facebook share of a photo of herself with the Democratic Party's nominee for president. Here's the whole exchange:

The single issue of the racist wars the U.S. has engaged in for decades is only one of the many criticisms I would make of the Democrats' choice of a leader. There is ample evidence that it's not at all inaccurate to call her a warmonger, an epithet I would define as "a person who actively seeks opportunities to wage wars." And Shenna Bellows does not dispute this. She just doesn't like my choice of searingly truthful words.

I'm not sure that there is a more polite term for warmonger. Unless Democrats think it is Secretary of State? I am old enough to remember that this role in the executive branch of government used to be seen as that of the head of diplomacy. You know, someone who thinks that communicating and negotiating should be employed before killing selected dictators (formerly supported by the U.S.) that also lead to the "collateral damage" deaths of innocent children and other human beings.

Jeremy Scahill has coined the term "cruise missile liberals" for people who opposed war on Iraq when a Republican was in charge, but have given Democrats in the White House their approval for endless wars causing thousands of deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen.

The long list of other reasons I think the Democratic candidate is odious would include her support for Israel's crimes against humanity, her promotion of the climate crime of fracking the planet, her misuse of the office of Secretary of State to promote U.S. corporate interests abroad, and her slavish obedience to Wall St. Remember when banks got bailed out and we got sold out? Democrats were in power for that turning point toward the darkness that lies ahead for us all.

Honestly I am not super wound up about her election fraud during the primaries. The DNC is a club that plays dirty, in office or out. It may present the cruise missile liberal face of our corporate overlords but the other side (the racist, xenophobic face) has no monopoly on corruption.

Finally, I will confess that I am not excited much less tearing up over the prospect of a female warmonger in the White House. Feminist values would include caring for the children of the entire planet, not clawing your way to the top of a violent patriarchy. 

I am supporting a woman candidate for president, the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein. She has values I actually believe in, and I think she would appoint a great cabinet and be a real force for the healing that needs to occur in our nation.

As to the charge of my lack of civility in calling a warmonger a warmonger, and expressing regret that a politician I used to admire is proud of supporting her, I can live with that. I'd far rather be truthful than polite as the ship of state sinks. Our nation is in deep trouble and the prospects of continued life on the planet along with it. I am a child of the resistance to the Vietnam war, I was inspired by the courage of civil rights activists, and this anthem by Malvina Reyonolds has stayed with me for life:


Unknown said...

Hurrah Lisa! I could not agree more. Best, Sarah Roche-Mahdi

Mark Roman said...

This is the crux of this argument. Both parties have decided not to address the issue of the unbridled, aggressive militarism of the U.S. government. To have conducted the sham presidential debates without a discussion of, at the least, the economic implications of the war profiteering's cost to our domestic economy is an insult to the intelligence of any citizen with the least bit of interest in the economic future of their children and grandchildren.
The moral issue of bombing innocent civilians around the globe, in the name of "the war on terror", is a subject not to be mentioned by polite, privileged voters who seem able to deny these violent acts done in their names, as long as their children are not blown to pieces and buried under under piles of dry, collapsed rubble in foreign lands.
For these privileged voters, the choice of Supreme Court nominees, women's "right to choose" or the health of the (Wall Street) economy are far more important than a foreign policy that has resulted in millions of dead or dislpaced lives due to endless, profitable wars.The foreign policy of a Nobel Prize winning POTUS, ordering the execution of civilians without due process of law around the globe, and a war mongering Secretary of State.
The lack of an anti war plank of any sort in either party makes the thin veneer of respectability, hastily cobbled together for the election cycle, an utter crok of crap that we are urged to vote for out of fear.
The Oligarchy has done well.

Rebecca L. Northcutt, Esq. said...

I am reminded of my time in law school when the professor informed us that in order to argue in federal court, women lawyers were required to wear dresses or skirts. ( 1998) You also had to address the judges as Your Honor whether they are honorable or not. And ask permission to approach the bench, use the right color of folders, exact number of lines per page, all perfectly spaced and do forth. Well, Lisa, you may recall one of your first acts of civil disobedience was in the 8th grade when we girls walked out to protest Mr. Dave Raffo, our sexist principal's requirement that we wear dresses. I still feel adamant about anyone telling me how to dress, especially coming from old white dudes. Guess who sits on nearly all the court benches? So I had to decide what is more important: protesting in the halls and streets in my bluejeans or playing by their frickin rules so I could get in there and help my disabled clients, many of whom were non- verbal and counting on me to make their voices heard. The decision was easy.
Thank God the federal courts changed the dress requirement and this old butch still hasn't worn a dress since 8th grade! . But to this day I keep a bra in my drawer just in case I have to go to court. Sometimes being strategic is more important than clinging to ideals that serve only to silence you.