Seems like this shoe thing was the ultimate insult from a certain segment of society; besides chopping off heads that is ...
It made me ponder the culture differences between "us" and "them" just a bit (if there is such a thing as 'us' and 'them' at all anymore).
Why do I say that? Well truthfully, to read or hear many of the sympathetically positive, encouraging, even enhanced ruminations in the what-he-should-have-done comments on gather and elsewhere irt this guy and this subject, one really might never know there was any difference at all between 'some of us' and the shoe thrower's culture (the one he chose to display to the world).
And while I still have hope that there are differences, one might never be able to perceive much difference at all between 'some of us' and the shoe-thrower's character, or his ability to control himself, or to understand what is acceptable "political protest" ... and what is at best a stupid momentary loss of self control which we all experience at one time or another; at worst an overtly, intentionally, symbolically violent action (if he could have done more he may have) that could have cost him his life if Security had been more alert and less able to discern the actual level of threat shoe-thrower posed.
In other words, there are many here on Gather and elsewhere who identify with the thrower ("poor guy", he was soooo beaten down and just had to "say" something and did it the only way he knew ... traditionally and culturally). They say they would have done the same or worse, they wish he'd done more, and they have expressed and continue to express the hope someone does it again (or worse) to Bush, soon. Some say this guy should get a medal for what he did; thus, willingly and unashamedly putting themselves into the same category as this guy. Maybe even happily so. +shrug+
... In any case, here is my opinion of shoe-thrower-guy (if yer still with me).
To this man and many, though not all of his countrymen and fellow Muslims, throwing shoes at the President of the U.S. during a news conference (to which the guy was invited as a civilized member of the press) was a great act of patriotism and valor as well as a terrible insult to GW.
And on some level it is an insult to G.W., if only because the thrower meant it as one.
But ordinarily, does a temper tantrum actually insult or throw a bad light on anyone but the one who throws it? Personally, the thrower-guy reminded me of a two-year-old having a temper tantrum. Does a two-year-old's tantrums insult or put a bad light on his mother or any other adult in the room even if the adult has not always done or not done what the child wants him to do or not do? No. It reflects the self-control and maturity level of the two-year-old.
Similarly this "reporter's" actions, rather than actually reflecting on GW's character or actions, in my mind reflected more on his own upbringing (his peers? and personal, cultural, maybe even religious upbringing) his own beliefs and moral foundation, his own character and his own probable immaturity in regards to understanding freedom and how it works and what one can freely do without consequences; even in a free society). Especially if the one you throw a shoe at isn't the one who will decide your fate (Bush poo-poohed it but that doesn't mean shoe-thrower will go scott free cause Bush won't be the one deciding shoe-thrower's fate. In the same way even if a victim forgives a relative's murderer, it does not necessarily follow that the murderer will go free without suffering some or even mortal consequences.)
I pondered my opinion to make sure I wasn't being as partisan as it sounds (even though in general, imo being partisan isn't as bad as some make it out to be), and I found that as much as Amadinawhatever grates on me, I would never be tempted to throw anything at him in that same setting because, I hope at this point in my life I am better behaved than that (unless he's pointing a gun at me or waving a machete at my neck; then, all bets are off).
Further, I would be outraged if anyone anywhere in a foreign country or in this country threw anything at President Obama that had a possibility of striking him, how ever gently it might strike. Other than words, that is. Even if the thrower missed. The very thought outrages me. And trust me, I would like nothing better than if Obama had stayed in Illinois, Indonesia, or Kenya for them to have to deal with.
But, that's the difference between 'us' and 'them;' I wish Obama had never come to the U.S. and failing that, I wish he'd never made it to Washington. "They" wish "other things" irt those they disagree with. Those of you who agree or sympathize with the shoe-thrower, you know first hand what those other things are and you seem to be proud of them and the thought process that produced them in you and in others.
Additionally, at the risk of sounding as if I'm tooting my own horn, that's the difference between an adult and a child; it's the difference between civilization and anarchy. It's the difference between someone who takes control of himself and someone who allows himself to be controlled by someone else (shoe-thrower-guy et al were/are being controlled by Bush instead of controlling themselves).
I do not and never will support Obama in ... pretty much anything he has done or has in mind to do. But, would I celebrate and even wish to emulate an act of violence against him? Not likely. To get just a little sarcastic about it .. I was raised better than that.
And if you think about it for more than a knee-jerk moment (those of you who spout off about how great shoe-thrower's actions were) ... we are not talking just about Bush and one shoe-thrower. We are talking about the office of the POTUS (however tarnished some may think it has become - and however tarnished it has yet to become under Obama). We are talking about any POTUS. If you think it was just Bush this show-thrower was throwing at, you are mistaken to the nth degree.
"They," the ones who would side with the shoe-thrower-guy, 'they' think of the U.S. the way libs and some others think of Bush ie. If a cow on the south side of a mountain in Burma breaks its leg .. it's Bush's fault. If a child in Palestine falls and skins his knee, it's Bush's fault. -just as- If a mother in Russia gets a pink scarf as a gift instead of a blue one, it's the fault of the U.S. government. +shrug+
Any POTUS, any U.S. representative (from any time period) would have done just as well in assuaging this guy's need to give in to his lack of self control (his need to defeat temptation by giving in to it?). It really does not matter how much a U.S. President does or does not cow-tow to 'the world' or to shoe-thrower's part of the world in particular ... we have always been and always will be the bad guy.
Obama's own safety, and any future president's also, could be somewhat dependent (or a lot more than somewhat dependent) on the outcome of that shoe thrower's trial. If he gets a light sentence or a slap on the wrist, any other head of any country including our present President will be at more risk than ever before. Think of the shoe throwing as a possible 'dry run.' Maybe it was or it wasn't meant that way; but you can bet someone somewhere in the world has viewed it that way. And if they decide to take it to another level you can bet they won't be throwing just shoes.
There is a saying that may be more true "there" than almost anywhere else. In paraphrase it goes something like this: "Give em an inch and they will take a president's head eventually."
It's one thing to insult and condemn a member of one's own family (dem, lib, conservative, repubs, Bush, Obama ... all family of a sort), it's expected, even desirable to a point. But to side with someone outside the "family" who has attacked a member of the family, figuratively speaking, well that's just suicide in today's world, or in yesterday's world for that matter.
Saying it another way ... one does not have to side with Bush in order to side with the U.S. Or, if even that is too much for some U.S. citizens to stomach.... one does not have to side with Bush in order to side against those who would assault a President.
+tsk tsk tsk+
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
Actually, I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that everything infidels do is the ultimate insult. I mean come on! If it isn't a cartoon, it's a Teddy Bear named Mohamed.
I see the connection between liberals and Muslims though. At least in terms of their tolerance threshold. Both take themselves WAY too seriously.....
So, while you were raised better, one might have hoped that George Bush would have been raised better, also. He brought shame on the country and his office and he has to live with that, and those who point it out are only stating the blindingly obvious.
As for the reporter in question, he is a sad case, but his case is sad in large part because of the violence he has suffered at the hands of US and Iraqi forces in the aftermath of George Bush's most unnecessary war. The reporter will pay for his actions with a stiff jail sentence; he was lucky not to have paid with his life. He is not my hero, but he tried to make a dramatic and essentially nonviolent statement about his frustration over the war (nonviolent compared to the typical "statements" being made there, certainly). I'm glad that no injury was sustained by the President. I'm also glad he is long gone from Washington, and wish that this country had never made the terrible mistake of electing him.
I don't expect that we would have achieved some kind of problem-free perfection with an alternative President, but I doubt anyone else (from among realistic candidates) elected to the office could have done anywhere near as much harm to the US as GW Bush.
You refer to temper tantrums and two-year-olds. Maybe you should consider the breakdown that a grown person could have under the stress of war, and under circumstances where his own morals required him to make a statement without being truly violent. I doubt many US citizens would be remembering to drink properly from their tea-cups if the head of state of an invading nation happened by for a visit.
You say "I wish Obama had never come to the U.S. and failing that, I wish he'd never made it to Washington. " Do you feel that way about all the other citizens of the US? I just wonder, because we ALL came from somewhere else, at some point in our family histories. Even Native Americans.
It does us all good to remember what FDR said upon addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution. He started out, "My fellow immigrants, ..."
I am really glad you stopped by and I would like to address lots of what you say ... guess I will eventually as time permits; but I want to take time now to just repeat (possibly slighted edited) something I said in my remarks above. I think when I wrote it, this was the main point I was getting at. Hope to have more time now and then to come back to speak to more of what you've said.
I said above: 'It's one thing to insult and condemn a member of one's own family .... meaning dem insulting lib, lib insulting conservatives, Repubs insulting libertarians, everyone insulting Mormons, Obama taking a pot shot at people who can only speak one language, libs taking pot shots at those who don't approve abortion, everyone taking pots shots at "big" oil ... all family of a sort.
It's expected, even desirable to a point in order to get all sides of issues out in the open.
But to side with someone outside the "family" who has attacked a member of the family, figuratively speaking, well that's just suicide in today's world, or in yesterday's world for that matter.
Saying it another way ... one does not have to side with Bush in order to side with the U.S.
Or, if even that is too much for some U.S. citizens to stomach.... one does not have to side with Bush in order to side against those who would assault a President.'
One more thing ... you said: " Do you feel that way about all the other citizens of the US?"
No. Not about all other citizens.