- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
December 23, 2008
Exclusive: Bush Can’t Use the “E” Word but Clinton Can?
“Evil”?
In Hollywood, conservatives must never use the “e” word. Never.Liberals prefer accurate descriptors like “wicked Scottish Republican males.” Believers hate the “simplistic” word, with a complex righteousness. Or, do they just hate conservatives – and Bush in particular - using the “e” word against Islamofascists?
Consider:
April 20, 1995: The Oklahoma bombing rocks the States. “Bill Clinton called the bombers ‘evil cowards,’ and Attorney General Janet Reno said the government would seek the death penalty against them,” reports the Associated Press writer, Owen Canfield.
So, where are all the dead-tree media assaults on the Democrat Party’s lanky star? Are Republican writers and politicians pouncing on Clinton’s right to use the “e” word?
February 12, 1996: “A ‘Speak No Evil Day’ is being planned for late spring,” writes Catherine Stortz in her mental non-judgmental column for the Constitution-Tribune, Mo.
“The idea started out small but organizers hope the issue will lead to President Clinton signing a proclamation and, in turn, improve the social welfare of the country” and save seals. Notably, Joseph Teluskin “serving the Performing Arts in Los Angeles” and Joseph Lieberman gave birth to the idea.
Curiously, therefore, liberals – I’m happy to report – have permission to (a) use the “e” word against white anti-Semitic terrorists; (b) seek bipartisan support for “Speak No Evil Day” and (c) use the “e” word without having to worry about a show trial. But can we say the same about Bush, for example? Does he have permission to use the “e” word? Does Joe, the plumber? Do you?
Consider:
August 20, 2002: In his LA Times homily (“Simplistic Hunt for Evil in a Complex World”) Robert Scheer rages: “Doomed by the incoherence of a foreign policy defined largely by biblical notions of the struggle between good and evil, the Bush administration thrashes about in its hunt for the devil.”
Thus, embracing “biblical notions of the struggle between good and evil” like Churchill is abominable because…? My late Christian grandfather’s simplistic decision to use his “biblical notions of the struggle between good and evil,” to fight Hitler’s Germany must make liberals cringe. Yet, like most leftwing “anti-fundamentalists,” Robert Scheer is far more evangelical than the evangelical thinkers he preaches against.
The preachy fan of old Red Korea’s cultic regime continues: “Time to forgo the biblical allegories of good and evil and recognize that in the 21st century, smiting one's enemies is an elusive goal requiring patience and subtlety, as well as timely heroics,” unless, of course, you’re enemies are Christians. “The enemy, whether it be global warming, addictive drugs, endemic poverty, religious fanaticism, terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, is best thought of as a dangerous disease succored by ignorance, pride and avarice - sins of which the U.S. too is sometimes guilty. That is why we will continue to be tormented by monsters of our own creation.”
But, how can Scheer talk about “sins” without acknowledging evils? You’ll find hard evidence of Democrats using the “e” word without recriminations, though, and Republicans having to say sorry for their free speech sins. There are “monsters” out there.
More, there’s also evidence of Neville Chamberlain liberals using the “e” word against pro-life churches. But there’s more. When the liberal isn’t using the “e” word, we can observe him painting conservatives as comic book tyrants. Thus, in many respects, there are different rules. Remember the “evil” Kenneth Starr? Conservative whistleblowers, in short, are “agents of evil” and “agents of intolerance,” full stop.
Consider:
September, 15, 1998: In The Captial newspaper’s nonjudgmental editorial (“Starr is evil, vicious, vindictive, sick and malevolent”), the Annapolis scribes made their position biblically clear. “On January. 27 we also said that Mr Starr was ‘the agent of the evil idea that the state is all and the rights if the individual are subordinate.’ We wish to amend that statement. Mr Starr, and his subordinates ARE evil.”
It’s also conventional wisdom in media circles, then, that when conservatives expose liberals, they’re evil, but when liberals expose conservatives with conspiratorial theories, they’re “whistleblowers.” The Capital, after all, is more circumspect when psychoanalyzing Osama’s emotional needs, his feelings, and his jihadi mood swings. Most fundamentally, the “anti-fundamentalist” believes he can attack the so-called Christian fundamentalist, because he is “evil.” If you’re absolutely opposed to conservative absolutes, then you’re a moderate.
But there is some light at the end of the schizophrenic tunnel. Why? Because if Scottish Christian hijackers from Oklahoma take out civilian planes, cautious Democrats will finally allow Republicans to use the “e” word again.
Let’s face it, leftwing hacks can tolerate Gore picking the birth-mother of “Speak No Evil Day” to run with, they just take issue with Lieberman’s position on Saddam’s evilness, and Bush’s patriotism. You see, free conservative speech is, well, “evil” speech.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Ben-Peter Terpstra, an Australian-European satirist, is a contributor to a number of websites, from On Line Opinion (Australia's e-journal of social and political debate) to American Thinker. His pieces are also posted on his blog, Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
