Cartoon for August 27, 2009
Muslims are arrested and tortured on the flimsiest of pretexts. Right-wing whites, on the other hand, are allowed to threaten the (black) president with impunity.
Labels: race and racism
posted by Ted Rall at
12:01 AM
39 Comments:
Ted,
Thank you for covering this insanely important topic. If any of your readers were pissed off at the anger I directed at you, sorry folks. We have to ad mit though, that starting a few weeks ago this insane fringe had become a more serious issue as opposed to Obama's soft spine.
Ted, ever since that dust up with Amnokgang, I commend you for focussing on this strange fringe that has risen out of the woodwork to physically intimidate members of the United States government.
These people have NO RIGHTS having weaponry so close to a POTENTIAL TARGET like the United States President.
Displaying weaponry is considered a form of intimidation in all democratic countries. Specifically "Unlawful" Intimidation.
Sincerely
Y_S
Pakistan
Y_S,
From your signature you infer you are from Pakistan. So please, when you say things like, "These people have NO RIGHTS having weaponry so close to a POTENTIAL TARGET like the United States President." say it's your opinion.
Because it is not a fact. They do have the right.
As far as physically intimidating members of the US government real threats were and are still present. They do not include gun totting protesters.
Like I told someone the other day, I'd be a lot more concerned over the man with a concealed weapon rather than an open weapon.
If I've signed a post under my own name isn't it damn well obvious its my own opinion? Or does your foolish defense of these stupid gun rights turn your brain to mush?
You are a regular poster at Rall.com Santiago, so automatically you have some respect from me, posting under an identifiable name. That is as opposed to the various Anonymous who show up here.
Do I need to inform you, that display of weaponry, especially where it is not expected is an act of intimidation. Even at our political rallies, if a civilian is carrying a gun, the purpose is to intimidate others (potentially from rival political parties) from openly showing themselves as a sign of counter protest. Hanging a gun from your shoulder is referred to in the Pakistani press as "Open Display of Arms". This act is given its special name because of what it is: Intimidation.
Intimidation chills the air. It freezes free thought and open debate. If two people are arguing something contentous and one of them suddenly puts a revolver on the table, 9 times out of 10 the other person will quiet down out of fear.
And that is just between ordinary people...
When you have somebody occupying as dangerous a job as President of the United States, then the confluence of powers you represent obviously make you a Target for Violent Attack. You are no longer an ordinary citizen, your life is now in EXTRAORDINARY DANGER.
To protect that person, EXTRAORDINARY precautions HAVE TO BE TAKEN.
People were thrown out of Bush rallies just for showing up with anti-war t-shirts. People were followed by the Secret Service when they just showed up with anti-war bumper stickers. These ideological psychopaths are showing up with fucking guns! If this were the Pakistani President (or Prime Minister), I can assure you police would visibly surround them and make sure they were taken far, far away. Same if it was the Indian, Sri Lankan or Chinese Head of State. And lets not begin to talk about what the British, French or Israeli's would do to any moron like these (snipers anyone?). The Canadian, Mexicans and Brazilian securtiy would go ape-shit (just to look at your own hemisphere). And the Australians would probably just start openly thrashing any fools who showed up with guns near their Head of State.
So yeah, I think people who bring guns anywhere near Heads of State are dangerous ideological fools. And those who defend them are plain and simple morons.
Sincerely
Y_S
Pakistan
Y_S,
Yes, I do have the decency to use my actual name unlike others. I understand your frustration with that and I share it too. I digress.
"Or does your foolish defense of these stupid gun rights turn your brain to mush?"
When you make an authoritative statement which indicates thats the way it is it indicates it is not your opinion but a fact. That is a common mistake a lot of people make.
I happen to be a historian and gun collector. Frankly, I think it was ridiculous what they did.
However, when I lived in Indiana I used to openly and concealed carry a gun. There are rules for doing so.
"especially where it is not expected is an act of intimidation."
Who is to say where it is expected or not, the courts already decided this. Those people have a legal right (not my opinion a fact) to do so.
If people don't like that fact they can pass legislation. However, this is a federalist republic so it would have to be local legislation not federal.
"Intimidation chills the air. It freezes free thought and open debate. If two people are arguing something contentous and one of them suddenly puts a revolver on the table, 9 times out of 10 the other person will quiet down out of fear."
Sure it does. However, if people choose to be intimidated by guns politicians in this country would have been listening to the Aryan movement since the 70s and 80s.
"When you have somebody occupying as dangerous a job as President of the United States, then the confluence of powers you represent obviously make you a Target for Violent Attack. You are no longer an ordinary citizen, your life is now in EXTRAORDINARY DANGER."
Obama knows this. He ran for the job and it comes with risks. It was perhaps his but most definitely secret services decision to allow those people there.
It's not exactly those people's fault they showed up with guns it was secret services decision to allow them into the area.
This isn't Pakistan Y_S and these people have the right to carry guns. If you want to get into whats wrong with India, Sri Lanka, China, Britain, France, Israel, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia then that's your business. It's not my business to judge other countries.
"And those who defend them are plain and simple morons."
Then I guess the law is plain and simply a moron.
What always surprises me, no matter how many times I found it, is an incredible, massive conditioning and planting of stupidity in USA. For example, Santiago,very far from the logic and rational reasoning, he is "a lot more concerned over the man with a concealed weapon rather than an open weapon."
So, introducing greater evil in discussion, he accepts the lesser. Good system. Imagine using it in all kinds of discussion.
Too many 'You' statements. Way too many 'You' statements. YOUUUUUU sign your post 'anonymous,' therefore EYE am legitimate and YOUUUUU aren't!
EYE use two letters of the alphabet around an underscore. THAT makes MY opinion BETTER than YOURS, because two letters around an underscore constitutes an identity, whereas 'anonymous' is cowardly. Wayyyy to many YOU statements. What a maroon!
I strongly believe responsible people should be allowed to own and carry guns for self defense. I'd take issue with the notion that most present gun carriers are responsible, though.
States and localities with lax carry laws tend to be low crime areas. One could argue that that is cause rather than effect, but that's beside the point. If someone feels unsafe going to the grocery store without 2 lbs of 357 pulling down their pants, how can the same person properly decide whether deadly force is necessary in an ambiguous situation?
If safety really was an issue, there are other actions that would probably make one safer than carrying a gun. How about wearing a crash helmet while walking? I'd bet falls kill more people than gunshots each year. If its about personal safety, why do people only fight for the safety feature that appears manly, not the one that appears retarded?
You generally can't legally carry a gun in places where muggings and rape are a credible threat. I don't fault otherwise law abiding residents of those areas who choose to carry guns. They have enough sense not to take them to town halls.
This is just now getting sophomoric. As anon 7:47 proved. I introduced no lesser evil, that's what they are allowed to do.
Far from being concerned about the law or anybody's right they are just concerned about what they feel is right.
I thank our founding fathers and the court systems which prevent people like you to impose what they think is the right thing which is honestly fickle at best.
Honestly consider this my last post on this subject. Like one of Ted's cartoons I am walking away after trolls are pushing me out.
Instead of valid arguments I get nothing but opinions and insults. This is why no one considers fringes from the left anything but a joke.
No go ahead and launch all the sophomoric reasonings and insults. You wont get a peep out of me. So start throwing punches at fog.
Hi all,
"Displaying weaponry is considered a form of intimidation in all democratic countries. Specifically "Unlawful" Intimidation."
I'd like to add my opinion to this. I agree with the right of these people to display guns at the rallies. First, it is true that they were legally within the right to do it, and not actually near the President. The Secret Service is well aware, not only of this potential threat, but of many other real attempts at the President's life. In fact, there have been numerous attempts on his life in the past year and a half. Most have been by ignorant buffoons who didn't even get close to executing their plans.
It is my firm belief that the vast majority of the people who showed up with guns, if not all of them, are in absolutely no way interested in seeing Obama harmed. If a bit misguided, it isn't actually in their make up. Also, they are at least smart enough to understand the precise line which not to cross when facing off against the secret service. I suspect based on my knowledge of what happened when Obama spoke in my town, and my association with a few secret service folks, that these people were within sniper scopes all the time. They don't play political games.
Lastly, I'd like to speak to the intimidation. I support the right of Americans to intimidate their government in a meaningful (potent and effective) way. People on the Rall blog have complained ad nausea about the lack of outrage amongst the American public. Why then the immediate revulsion at those who actually do?
I think, two reasons:
1) Their worldview is way off from accurate. In fact, it's downright bass ackwards! Moreover, however, it isn't in line with the dominant views expressed on this blog. So they're not "our people." so to speak.
2) It appears so completely staged and whipped up fake anger by political interests who are simply Republican, not even conservative and certainly not libertarian. In that sense, it seems completely disingenuous, and therefore all involved have a severe lack of intellect to understand how effectively they're being played for political purposes.
However the spirit of protest is genuinely American. I think their political position and the worldview they represent is stupid, but it doesn't bother me at all that they are expressing themselves.
As for Obama....I think government and political officials ought to have a firm and present fear of those they are supposed to serve. And, I think that the political establishment in the United States is completely unconcerned with providing real solutions, doing their jobs, and adhering to the laws and constitution they claim to uphold.
Santiago, this is my opinion.
Quoth Y_S:
The Canadian, Mexicans and Brazilian securtiy would go ape-shit (just to look at your own hemisphere)
Brazilian security would probably shoot them on sight, because the only people who can openly carry down here are police, private security and, of course, organized crime gangs. Somehow, I don't think we (or you in Pakistan) are in a better situation than the Americans, but that is just my humble opinion...
To Santiago and his ilk,
OK, the law allows people to carry concealed or displayed guns. I assume that is for personal protection in dangerous areas or situations.
Can you tell me please, what is the purpose of carrying displayed guns to political rallies other than to intimidate people and/or push the country to violence confrontation.
It is that simple, and your opinions about that subject are nothing but sophistry and bullshitting.
Aggie Dude,
I don't pretend to make everyone state that it's their opinion or not. But when you make a statement like Y_S did saying they have no right when in fact legally they do is blatant intellectual dishonesty to present it as a fact.
Your point #2 is my big issue with the whole thing.
Thank you for having an honest discussion and realizing the base facts instead of attacking the base as false when it isn't.
Inciatus,
It's also the same for the other countries he mentioned too. I think the fact he lives in Pakistan warps his view. I'm quite sure the Pakistani state media is not exactly the friendliest towards the US.
The other thing is that Ted is being an extreme alarmist on the issue. Right wing terrorists who have even flimsily hashed out plans have been arrested and jailed.
A real threat would not be just wearing the weapon. He would have shouldered it to fire. In that case there would have been about a dozen sniper bullets hitting him before he could take a good bead on the target.
But again Ted for some reason keeps ignoring the fact that the guy carrying the only possible reasonable long range threat (a rifle, because people with firearms were cordoned off pretty far away) was black! He was black!!!!
synic3:
"OK, the law allows people to carry concealed or displayed guns. I assume that is for personal protection in dangerous areas or situations."
Synic3, your assumption aside, it's a legal right that has not yet been needlessly taken away, and that is all the purpose they need to express their right. Someone, somewhere, may intend for this to be intimidating, but a simple investigation of the situation should allay any fears that lead people to be intimidated. These people are not going to so much as take the smallest provocative action with their firearms. The place is crawling with secret service. If a person is intimidated, it's because they choose to be.
To be intimidated by the expressed freedoms of others is cowardice, and that level of cowardice leads us to accept greater levels of encroachment on our own freedoms for a false sense of security.
"Can you tell me please, what is the purpose of carrying displayed guns to political rallies other than to intimidate people and/or push the country to violence confrontation."
Absolutely, the purpose of carrying displayed firearms at these political rallies is to demonstrate the legal right to do so. There is no other reason that I can determine; These people are not presenting a coherent political or philosophical view point, and they are not even addressing any possibility of losing the rights they are exercising -those rights are not being threatened.
"It is that simple, and your opinions about that subject are nothing but sophistry and bullshitting."
I was a little surprised to read this. There was no need in this conversation to interject nastiness. Sophistry and bullshitting is what having a conversation on a blog is all about, dude. Relax..."TRUTH" with a capital T has not been violated this day. :)
Santiago:
I was taking the opportunity to be a jackass for no particular reason by restating that it was my opinion. I did it with a smile on my face so I hope it wasn't offensive!
synic3,
Is it possible for anyone that disagrees with me to be polite? It really detriments your point and makes you look like a clown.
"OK, the law allows people to carry concealed or displayed guns. I assume that is for personal protection in dangerous areas or situations."
Nope. If that were the case you would have to somehow see into the future to see if there is a prospect of danger. Thus, if you go into a potentially dangerous situation then you are asking for it. Most reasonable people avoid them. When you carry a gun you carry it for a potential threat, not an assumed threat.
"Can you tell me please, what is the purpose of carrying displayed guns to political rallies other than to intimidate people and/or push the country to violence confrontation."
Honestly, the root core is that you felt intimidated. No one else there did. President Obama and his security service weren't intimidated. If they had they would have apprehended the guy as Obama was whisked away in a armored caravan.
Again you and your left wing buddies were the only ones intimidated.
"It is that simple, and your opinions about that subject are nothing but sophistry and bullshitting."
Dare you to go say that to the armed men at the rallies. You know what they would do? Nothing. It is you who is the instigator, not them. No one talked about violence or revolution. Again, it's your own paranoid fear.
I can "bullshit" all I can as you say. But facts are facts. The actual threats are being stamped out by Obama. Protesters who make people like you scared don't make him wince.
"But again Ted for some reason keeps ignoring the fact that the guy carrying the only possible reasonable long range threat (a rifle, because people with firearms were cordoned off pretty far away) was black! He was black!!!!"
This is frighteningly immaterial to the point of the cartoon, and the column.
ps. handguns are long range enough (ask Reagan and Brady et al.)
Aggie Dude,
It brought a smile to my face too, so obviously no offence taken.
Angelo,
With handguns you have to get up close and personal as John Hinckley did. The real maximum range for most pistols is 25 yards. A rifle is 600 yards or in the case of the AR a realistic 400 yards. Ask Kennedy. Handguns as everyone who has used them is nothing like Hollywood tries to portray them.
It is material to the point of the cartoon completely. The point is the only one who had a real "chance" at hitting Obama was black, not white.
Ted in order to editorialize made the person with the rifle white not as he really was black.
Wanna know something funny about your reference? Read the trial of John Hinckley, it pretty much proves my point verbatim.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleytranscript.htm
A little reference point, "That ability to conceal his weapon is further evidence of his conforming his conduct, that is, he recognized that [w]aving a gun would be behavior likely to attract attention, and did not wave the gun. He concealed it."
When you have a gun on your shoulder its a protest. When you conceal it and get close to the President it's an assassination attempt.
I agree with Angelo, it's immaterial, because the issue is who is threatened. The lives of non-whites do not generate the value in our society to have open displays of societal defensiveness. If this had happened with George Bush in power, Dick Cheney would have locked himself in a bunker and the citizens would have been shot on site.
I also agree with Santiago, synic3 chose to be intimidated by this. Synic3, I invite you for a day out at an unregulated gun range, where you can see "those people" in action, displaying the upmost seriousness with regard to firearm safety and respect for those around them. Anyone with the foresight to show up at a political rally armed is well versed in what to do and not to do. This would not have been at all intimidating to me, and if I had been there I would have walked right up to those guys and asked them why they came armed and what message they were trying to present by doing so.
Santiago,
First, I am sorry for my bad language.
Second, with all your legal and constitutional arguments and lawyery hair splitting , I am not convinced that carrying arms to political gatherings is acceptable behaviour or wise.
These rallies were not about the rights to carry or not to carry arms and this issue almost vanished from public discussion.
So, the only reason for those guys to carry arms is to send a threatening message. Do you think it is a good idea, from now on, for everyone to carry arms to political meetings.
Why this phenomenon is just starting to happen now. Why it did not happen during W Bush time and befor??!!
Synic3,
Ah! See now we are getting into what I really wanted to talk in the first place.
They have the right to do so. Is it a good idea? I didn't think so.
However, why they felt like protesting for gun rights is a little weird at a health care debate.
Maybe they felt disenfranchised and wanted to rally for their rights.This is why I disagree that they were sending a threatening message. It didn't happen during G.W. Bush's term because of peoples fear of Democrats taking their guns away. Why would they protest with guns when he (because of his party affiliation) is not going to take them away (allegedly).
Is it a good idea to bring guns into political meetings? There are plenty of political meetings where they do carry guns. Such as open carry members of Indiana, they hold regular meetings in open places to express their views. This has been happening since Indiana (as an example) enacted their shall issue carry law. But showing up to a welfare (as an example) rally with guns is not the greatest idea.
And actually you want to hear another view of the story? This is one that is dear and near to historians of carrying firearms. It actually made me extremely happy to see an African American with a gun on the street.
Why?
The reason why there were bans on carrying weapons on person is to protect the white people from crazy black people (their thoughts not mine). They at first didn't enforce the law against white people but did so for other races.
Interested in the subject I can provide books, references, etc. for the matter.
Aggie Dude,
Yeah, I've spent a great deal of time in unregulated gun ranges. Most people were so nice they gather around and just talk about guns, life, politics, everything. They also give you great advice and help.
The other people who were jerks I mean would just take up more space than they needed to. And if you walked up to them and told them so they would move.
However, I never felt threatened in one.
Oh I forgot to add.
Aggie Dude,
"This would not have been at all intimidating to me, and if I had been there I would have walked right up to those guys and asked them why they came armed and what message they were trying to present by doing so."
I think their message got drowned out honestly. In the mainstream media coverage I found nothing about it. Even though you can see many reporters asking them why they brought rifles. Both sides used it as a shock factor while the real reason was snuffed out. The problem with that is that it leaves it up to interpretation, as others are doing including me.
Synic3, you are correct that it is silly to continue to force the 2nd amendment issue when gun rights have not been an issue on the national stage in a long time. By flamboyantly displaying their firearms, these people are asking for a fight when they really don't need to.
However, I think that rather than them trying to threaten, they have been misled in continuing to believe that democrats threaten their 2nd amendment rights. The people who continue to use this as a wedge issue even though it is not, do so for their own political reasons.
It's unfortunate for someone like me, who is a socialist, but also a 2nd amendment advocate.
Ted, I still want to see you address the fact that the man with the rifle was black, not white - a point that really stains the entire cartoon.
Hi Jason. Stubbornness pays...
More than two dozen gunmen turned up at Obama appearances in New Hampshire and Phoenix, one of whom was black. I figured the one weird black oddball was less representative than the 23-plus white racists.
"The point [of Ted's Comic] is the only one who had a real "chance" at hitting Obama was black, not white. "
how many times will I type a one liner, and erase it because I just thought of a better one?
The black dude might have been a plant from the beginning....nobody I know owns an AR-15.
I don't agree with Ted's view that they are any more racist than anyone else. We're all racist (those of us raised in the United States) because we were all socialized into a system that was racialized; meaning that we are psychologically incapable of NOT seeing race, and specifically skin color, as a meaningful characteristic. This as opposed to, say, hair color, eye color, build, height, cheek bone structure, ear lobes, etc etc etc.
This is a side show of a side show of a side show. All of it was staged because it's familiar. None of it is relevant to the real issues that face our society. What does the 2nd amendment have to do with health care???
Ted,
I hate to call attention to particulars, but now you are calling all 23 racists? One of them was just a reporter. Interviewing the black man. How can you call all of them racist in one brush stroke.
Yeah sure Obama is black. So you are playing the argument that to oppose him is racist?
This hasn't happened before? The Turner Diaries which McVeigh followed (allegedly) was about taking government over before there was a black president. AS if white supremacists just got out of bed and decided to take over government because Obama is black.
Right wing nuts have been threatening government with guns for decades. But now we pay a lot of attention to them because the President is black. And anyone who opposes the President even if its a dumb idea is a racist.
So I disagree with President Obama. I guess I must be a racist. Or does it only work if I exercise my right to carry? Then am I a racist?
Find me how exactly they threatened Obama? Did anyone take a shot? Or is just the mere fact that they had a gun the threat? Because that's a cheap argument. There is a difference between intimidation and threatening.
Aggie Dude,
I checked out your blog, hope you don't mind. But it says you live in California. Have you been to the gun shows there?
I've been to gun shows in about 5 states (more to come, hooray C&R) and as you can tell I am a collector. So it sucks going to gun shows because there are ARs up the ass.
I used to own one, it was nice to track turkey with in 3 feet of snow with an AR. Light, but not my cup of tea that 5.56.
I see two distinct possibilities in the meaning of this cartoon, and I'm interested in Ted clarifying what his intention was.
Is this a question of who is authentically American? who has the right to threaten others, and who deserves to respond to threats with any use of force desired? Because "the terrorists" aren't white, and they are threatening "good, hard working, white Americans," we can do anything necessary to "keep our people safe." Including invading Iraq for no particular reason.
But because Obama is black, we sit and watch "a grave and gathering threat" to his security and safety grow, because the people doing it are -beyond race- legitimate Americans (a black man becomes valid when he carries an AR-15).
So Ted, is it about who has the right to threaten others with impunity (as the US does to the rest of the world)? or is it about who is worthy of being protected from threats (since Obama's black, we let the idiots carry guns)?
I suppose it could be about both....or I suppose it could be just something entirely different.
Said Santiago:
I figured the one weird black oddball was less representative than the 23-plus white racists.
Don't you dare doubting Rall's powerful mind-reading skill, man.
I'm currently in MI for another few months and then will move to CA. Haven't been to any gun shows in CA yet, I'm mostly only interested in hunting rifles. I use my great grandfather's Winchester M70/.270 (pre '64); absolutely stunning work of art.
I wonder how many socialists are out there who also have firearms. I doubt I'm that unique!
I feel like many of Ted's comics call attention to the fact that we are living in an alternate reality.
I guess it is still appropriate to do so.
Angelo, I have carefully constructed my alternate reality and value it greatly, thank you very much!!!!
Incitatus,
I didn't say that Ted did. But yeah his powers are mighty.
Aggie Dude,
MI, eh? I used to hang out in Pentwater MI a lot. With the locals not the tourists. haha.
I have to agree that it IS intimidating when various strangers are carrying guns. Even if "some" of these guys are white supremacists I am very uncomforatable. I wouldn't mind going to Glen Beck's rally but it's sad I have to find out if the D.C. gun ban is still in effect to feel comfortable in my own country. I am a gun owner and go to the range frequently but that's where guns belong and not at a health care rally. And it is strange that these people are coming out of the woodwork now.
Santiago said...
Like I told someone the other day, I'd be a lot more concerned over the man with a concealed weapon rather than an open weapon.
This is an amazingly incoherent sentiment; there is no logic in it whatsoever. One brandishes weapons in the open in order to intimidate. Thus, concealing the weapon would defeat the purpose. One might as well say, “The KKK would be scarier if they had burned crosses on their own lawns.” Terminally stupid.
And I know that Rall has bought into the “extra special hidden rights” bullshit, but I have to state it again: you have the absolute right to bear arms if you’re in a state-organized militia. Otherwise the framers have no particular love for you. The very idea that they would feel the need to enshrine rifles as sacred artifacts in the Constitution is idiotic: weapons were used for hunting, not merely revolution, and many people relied on catching game just to survive. The Framers would have seen no reason to give firearms special dispensation in the Constitution any more than they would feel a need to put a “right to farm” in the document. As I recall, a gun nut was actually present during their time and lobbied, fruitlessly, to get severe protections for firearms put into the document -- they rejected his plea.
The very idea that they would feel the need to enshrine rifles as sacred artifacts in the Constitution is idiotic: weapons were used for hunting, not merely revolution, and many people relied on catching game just to survive.
[...]
The Framers would have seen no reason to give firearms special dispensation in the Constitution any more than they would feel a need to put a “right to farm” in the document.
Good point. Gun control isn't an issue that I spend a lot of time on, and I'd never stopped to consider that. It's a rare thing to hear a new, thoughtful viewpoint in this forum.
Thanks!
To clarify my last post: nothing that I wrote should imply that I believe that anything the "Framers" thought should be considered sacrosanct.
Post a Comment
<< Home