Right wing commentary on world politics from a man on a mission to prove that Conservatism transcends national boundaries. Thoughtful comments from people of all political persuasions are welcome and encouraged. Contact the blogger at elephantman.conservaglobe@gmail.com.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Shameful behavior at King funeral.

I normally try to avoid personally insulting lefitist individuials on this blog, but I am REALLY ANGRY today. I had set aside this portion of my day for homework, but the news I read today got me so riled up that I had to post a short entry.

If you didn't know, Coretta Scott King's funeral was today. Instead of of respectfully honoring the memory iof Mrs. King, two speakers (Former President Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery) used their time to take cheap shots at President Bush (who happened to be in attendance and seated directly behind speakers' lectern!).

I would use the argument that it is not polite to publicly insult someone who is sitting right behind you, but a lot of leftist don't seem to think that Bush is entitled to the respect that they would afford to any othe human being. I would appeal to the integrity of the speakers, but they obviously believe that the laws of basic human decency don't apply if they are talking about someone as "evil" as the leader of the free world! Since so many people are willing to set aside their basic moral codes in favor of their hate of Bush, I'll try an argument that has nothing to do with the President at all...




At Sun Feb 12, 08:20:00 PM MST, Blogger Rynando said...

Free speach, my friend. Asides from that I'm sure MLK or CSK wouldn't have given a damn. President Bush would have never been considered a friend of either them, nor their political bent. They'd probably be considered the leftists you seem to despise.

At Sun Feb 12, 11:18:00 PM MST, Blogger ElephantMan said...

First off, what I said had nothing to do with the right to free speech. I completely support the right of Jimmy Carter and Joseph Lowery to say whatever they please. However, I also have free speech rights. That means that I have the right to say that what they did was classless and showed an utter lack of basic human decency.

You are right in one instance. I probably would have disagreed with both MLK and CSK on certain political issues, but civil rights and the right to free speech are not among those issues. The differece between myself and some modern leftists (I don't necessarily mean you) is that I am willing to look past petty ideological differences and acknowledge that people on the opposite side of the left-right political spectrum have done great things for the cause of freedom. I just wish that more people on your side of the spectrum would be willing to return the favor.

At Mon Feb 13, 12:28:00 AM MST, Blogger Rynando said...

Well, would you have felt as outraged if perhaps Clinton were president and someone on the right did the same? I think not. I would be willing to admit that right wingers have advanced civil rights if I'd ever heard of one to do so. I don't think classical examples like Jefferson or Lincoln really work so easily because their ideologies are debatable. I don't believe economics are the issue in this case, but I do believe heroes in such cases tend to have a left-wing bent. Asides from that, I myself believe Rev. Lowery's comments are in line with King's spirit, in that neither of them would have approved any senseless loss of life, much like the certain war in the middle east that Lowery was referring to. Perhaps it was a cheapshot, but I don't believe it was a violation of human decency in the slightest. You talk of respect for Bush, but why should people that so strongly disagree with him respect him? Clinton got no respect from the right and this is a double standard. I am not approving of either viewpoint, I'd just like you to know that lefties aren't the only ones with thinly veiled prejudices.

At Mon Feb 13, 12:31:00 AM MST, Blogger Rynando said...

Wait sorry, I have a lot of respect for President Eisenhower, whom was for all intents and purposes a fiscal conservative more than anything.

At Mon Feb 13, 07:46:00 AM MST, Blogger ElephantMan said...

I certainly have no love for Bill Clinton, but I would still be outraged if he had been publicly insulted by a eulogist at a funeral that he was atteding. If you want to talk about right-wingers who have made contributions to civil rights, maybe you should look at the U.S. Congress when the civil rights act was passed. President Johnson had to rely on Republican votes to pass the bill because the Democrats were fillibustering. One could also argue that George W. Bush has made great contributions to civil rights by appointing more African-American cabinet secretaries than any other President, not to mention several Hispanic and Asian secretaries.

At Mon Feb 13, 06:21:00 PM MST, Blogger ElephantMan said...

Also, I can think of quite a few Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites who would not only describe Bush as a civil rights crusader, but would also have serious problems with your assertion that the loss of life in Iraq is "senseless". (However, I would define ther genocidal slaughter of Kurds by Saddam as "senseless loss of life")

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have also made profound contributions in the area of human rights. Both of these individuals hastened the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union - thereby restoring freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly to millions of oppressed people.

Now that I've gotten significantly off-topic, let's get back to the original issue. I have serious problems with the idea that the comments of Carter and Lowery were "in line with King's spirit". It is not for us to judge what Corretta Scott King would have wanted done at her funeral. Unless someone has a signed document from Corretta King stating that she wanted her funeral to be used for such political grandstanding, I think that it is totally inappropriate for a eulogist to focus attention on anyone other than CSK.

As for "respecting" Bush. I'm not asking you to like him, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that he is human and treat him accordingly. I personally do my best to treat people as I would like to be treated. I am not obsolved of that responsibility just because people do things that I disagree with.

(On that note, I apologize to Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach for a few comments on another blog on which Ryanado and I have had arguments; but I stand by my opinion concerning her political conduct and potential candidacy for leadership of the Liberal Party)

At Mon Feb 13, 10:04:00 PM MST, Blogger Rynando said...

I'm not going to open the rat's nest that is Bush's war, or Reagan/Thaternomics even with a gun to my head. I guess we'll agree to disagree. Yet, I urge all people to listen to all arguments from the opposing side before judgements are made. I'm not saying you don't but maybe it's my personal belief that many people don't. If I didn't I wouldn't be replying to your blog at all and just listening to Michael Moore (which is probably something we could both agree is not a good thing) blindly.

At Mon Feb 13, 10:07:00 PM MST, Blogger Rynando said...

Oh yeah, on the issue of the Soviet Union, Mr Gorbachev was already allowing those rights you attribute by the end of communism. Hmmm it's actually a 3rd world rather than second world country now. Whoda thunkit. Just for your interest I guess.

At Wed Feb 22, 05:15:00 PM MST, Blogger JB said...

I'd like to challenge your assertion that post-Soviet Russia has declined so badly as you claim. The transitional process has been difficult, yes, but the huge inflation rates have been brought under better control in recent years and Russia's GDP has been growing phenomenally - 8% in 2000, for example. Along with Russia's democratization since 1991, which adds to the quality of life of Russian citizens far more than any economic gain ever could, it sounds to me like the Russian Federation is a far better place to live than the old USSR.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home