Thanks, yep, "Have a Happy Passover" is fine.
During the Passover Seder, when one drinks the four cups of wine one is to imitate the conduct of royalty (who used to recline on a couch when they ate). So we are instructed to lean to the left each time we drink the four cups.
It occurred to me, last night, that ...
For two nights a year, Michaelintp is actually LEFT-LEANING
Haha ... but now Passover is over ...
My son was visiting, and he had a stack of older Wall Street Journals with him, and whaddya know, there was an editorial on March 26th called "Demonizing Dissent" ... and I found one part particularly interesting:
"At a news conference yesterday, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Minority Whip, described his own experiences: 'I've received threats since I assumed elected office, not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish. I've never blamed anyone in this body for that -- period. ... A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week, and I've received threatening emails. But I will not release them, because I believe such actions will only encourage more to be sent.'"
Rep. Cantor was of course responding to the guilt-by-association tactics leveled against Republicans that we have been discussing. He makes a very good point. The unhinged individuals who engage in acts or threats of violence thrive on publicity. Elevating such incidents in the Media, drawing undue attention to them, is at best imprudent, if
one's goal is to not
encourage more of such incidents by the same or similarly-minded individuals. Query whether that is really one of the goals of those making a federal case out of every incident of some nut sending a threatening letter or email or yelling some threatening comment, or whether (as I suggested above) some on the Left actually see political capital in encouraging
such incidents (by feeding the egos of those who engage in such behavior, giving them the attention they long to receive). If true, and I think it is, this is terribly irresponsible. Just a thought.
The other thought I had is that, while of course we all agree that threats and acts of violence are reprehensible and must be condemned, that is not the same thing as strongly expressed political speech, intended to galvanize "the troops" to "target" the opposition (yep, in politics, military metaphors are often used, haha). It is very easy and convenient for The Establishment (those in power) to argue that the intensity, the public outrage, should be taken down a notch, when the effect of doing so would increase the likelihood of those in power maintaining the status quo. Dissent, by its very nature, usually involves the expression of strong feelings and vigorous outspoken efforts to convince others to join the "cause" to change the course of government and replace those who are presently in positions of leadership.
Put another way, those holding the reigns of power have an inherent advantage that, if nothing changes, they win. So, of course, they would like the discourse to be as low-key (and from the Opposition, as uninspiring) as possible.
This comment applies to dissent from the Left and dissent from the Right. It simply reflects the different power dynamic between those presently on the "inside" of Government, and those presently on the "outside."
So I am a little skeptical, now, of folk objecting to the intensity of feelings being expressed by Conservative Activists, when those very same folk didn't express objections when highly intense feelings were being expressed from dissenters on the Left against Republican Administrations.
And again, of course, when I refer to "Conservative Activists" I'm not referring to the extremist lunatic Right-Wing fringe here, I'm not referring to the crazed hate groups you referenced above, but rather to the vast majority of those involved in the Tea Party Movement, Conservative editorialists and commentators, and the like, who are sincerely concerned and, yes outraged, at the direction our country is headed. For many, the present expansion of Government, including ObamaCare, was the "straw that broke the Camel's back" (though, rather than a straw, it is more like a ton of bricks).
By my nature I'm inclined toward calm, often pedantic, discourse (which, as you are well aware, is less than inspiring). I liked the fact that in Peggy Noonan's article she did point out the "heat" from both the Right and the Left, Republicans and Democrats. But, at the same time, she didn't address the dynamics of power issue, that I've just raised, above. So I dunno. It is more complex.