|
March 28, 2004
Steelworkers, tigers, and bears, OH MY!
On a blog today I found an analogy (responding to this post) which reminded me of yesterday's "post": [Union guys] got their goddam unions--by fighting people who tried to and often did kill anyone who wanted to form a union. Or has Mr Smith forgotten his history? Margolis, by his own account, got into a shouting match with one of the union guys and all but dared him to go ahead and make something of it. Well, anybody from my neighborhood could have told him you don't challenge union guys to a duel, especially nowadays. They've been hammered by 25 years of radcon hatred and abuse. They've watched their unions be attacked as Communist, unAmerican, or subsidiaries of the Mob; they've had their company pensions stolen by their employers with the help and encouragement of Bush I; they've watched conservatives like Bush II disembowel worker protections, advance management powers, and eviscerate labor laws; they've seen the Labor Dept turned over to corporate shills who never worked a day in their lives; and they're painfully aware of how tenuous globalization and the Bush-engineered deficit make thier jobs. This is not the group some pissant, privileged college kid should be deliberately giving the finger to. These aren't intellectual liberals who talk things over; they're basically right-wing thugs, tough as nails and not prone to lengthy dialogue. Don't treat wild tigers as if they're house cats? Is that advice? According to simple logic, what the blogger must mean is that if you are so stupid as to "provoke" "tigers" (in this case disagreement with steelworkers constitutes provoking tigers), then you must treat them as tigers. Or as grizzly bears? And how does one treat a charging tiger or a grizzly bear? That's not as silly a rhetorical question as it sounds. We are not dealing with humans, right? We are dealing with dangerous, wild animals who were "minding their own business" but then attacked people who "provoked" them by chanting for Bush. (Hardly a house cat sitting on a fence.) Does this mean that there is no right to chant for Bush? Or does it mean that if you dare to chant for Bush, you'd better be armed for bear? I'm surprised at this logic. (Of course, in my home town of Berkeley, even fence sitting never guaranteed personal safety. In that town, city commissioners have been known to kill each other.) And in liberal, tolerant San Francisco, mere advocacy of homosexual self defense can get you physically attacked. I bring it up because I saw it first hand. Political disagreement can be dangerous to your health. I remember an occasion where a city employee in Berkeley charged into a campaign headquarters wielding a baseball bat because he was upset over signs. I suppose it could be argued that it constitutes "provocation" to publicly advocate anything which people might disagree with. Certainly the above blogger thinks so. And so does this guy (who's been quoted widely; and here's Glenn Reynolds's starting link): Margolis, enjoying the privilege of an expensive college education, verbally pushed this guy first. The union guy probably didn't get the same advantage, so he fought back with what he had, his fists - and Margolis is, or should have been, smart enough to know that he was likely to do so.Education being an "advantage," does this mean that if someone knows more than you do, why, you're justified in attacking intellect with fists? Back in the 1960s, the "hard hats" used to beat up anti-war protesters, and guys like Spiro Agnew were said to be egging on the former. Well, today, the lefties sound like vintage Agnew: You have this little smart ass college kid with too much time and money on his hands, all dewy-eyed because his hero, the Great Deceiver in Chief is in town and he gets in the face of burly blue collar worker who is struggling to meet his mortgage because of Bush's economic policies. What did they expect? That the union guy was going to thank this spoiled brat, whose parents are probably still paying his bills, for his input?Pure 1960s right wing nostalgia! Both sides love to engage in class war rhetoric, and "smart ass spoiled college kids" are a wonderful target if the kids disagree with you. But if they agree they're just fine. As usual, hypocrisy abounds. I prefer civility. But when civility fails, self defense is common sense. Especially when dealing with tigers who consider slogans for Bush to be "fighting words." What about a sign saying "SCABS FOR KERRY"? Is humor allowed? posted by Eric on 03.28.04 at 04:09 PM
Comments
I appreciate yourt posting of the link to and the long quote from my post, and I'm sorry you're confused. Let's see if I can help clear it up for you. "I prefer civility. But when civility fails, self defense is common sense." You're quite right, those are the issues, but your sense of hypocrisy is backwards, and your sense of history isn't too swift, either. "Back in the 1960s, the 'hard hats' used to beat up anti-war protesters..." But not because we were provoking them. We knew better than that. In fact, we tried to avoid confrontation. They came after us. You'll note that I called them "right-wing thugs" in the post; that was from hard experience. Margolis was doing exactly the opposite of us; where we tried to avoid confrontation because we knew quite well who and what they were and what we could expect in the way of a response, he deliberately tried to provoke them, and admits it. There can only be 2 explanations for this: 1) Lack of Courtesy (read: Arrogance) I know guys like Margolis, and so do you. They're the ones who have to stick their arms in the tiger cage at the zoo and dare the tigers to take a bite, and when one does they scream, "How dare you do that? And to me?" 2) Lack of Common Sense (read: Stupidity) 2 conclusions from this: 1) Margolis went looking for a confrontation and he got one. What a surprise. Now he wants to complain about it? The steelworkers weren't looking for the fight, Margolis was, and it probably wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been. 2) I don't condone what they did--looking for a confrontation is not a license to get beat up--but it takes a real simp not very tightly tied to reality to poke a grizzly bear in the eye and believe nothing's going to come from it. Is Margolis so divorced from real life that he didn't understand that? So stupid that he didn't know it? Or so arrogant that he thought reality would have to shift for his convenience? Your choice. They're all standard right-wing traits these days. maja · April 3, 2004 02:00 PM PS: The steelworkers clearly didn't arrive with the intent to join in combat, like they did with us back in the 60's. When they came after us then it was with clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, and chains. We suffered concussions, broken arms and ribs, and the odd spinal injury, not scratched faces. And all we did to deserve that was show up--no provocation, no poking the grizzly in the eye to get a reaction. And the police who were watching thought it was funny. Margolis was lucky they weren't ready for him. I sincerely hope he's learned his lesson. maja · April 3, 2004 02:12 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
That ties in with a 2-dimensional spectrum my friend Robin Georg Olsen thought of a few years ago. He had one axis be Left (defined as "progressive, new, different") vs. Right (defined as "traditional, proven, stable"), and another axis as "Leadership" (elitist, aristocratic) vs. "Grass-roots" (populist, democratic).
On the free speech issue, that argument is known as the "heckler's veto", that we musn't allow people to express views that are too controversial because others might disagree, violently. In other words, all a group needs to do to silence those with whom they disagree or don't like is to threaten violence, and then they, the threateners, the thugs, the criminals, have the veto, and the authorities, instead of protecting the rights of the dissenters, cave in. Thus, e.g., Southern segregationists could get the police to ban even the most peaceful protest by Negroes merely by threatening violence against them.
I'm against that!