To Heckle or Not to Heckle?

A standard tactic has been to infiltrate a speech or rally with partisans who would, once the speaker began, jump up and heckle.  Security would soon seize the person and escort them out of the event.  The speaker would resume and the next partisan would jump up and heckle.  In some cases, someone would rush the stage and try to take away the microphone.  If violence against the heckler could be provoked, all the better.  Eventually, all the infiltrators would be weeded out but the constant delays and interruptions might lead to a shortened or cancelled speech or frustration among the audience that they might not be willing to attend future events.  This has been almost universally a tactic of the left.

 

The other night, the right decided to try give it a try.  Laura Loomer rushed the stage at Shakespeare in the Park where Julius Caesar - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Donald Trump - has been assassinated nightly.  She screamed, "You are all Nazis."  She was arrested and taken away.

 

Andrew Klavan is upset by this and he makes a good point.  The right cannot defend free speech by trying to squelch speech with which they do not agree.  Like it or not, the play is free speech.  On the other hand, the aggressor sets the rules.  If a fighter arrives to a fist fight and discovers that his opponent is armed with a club, is he wrong to get his own club?  If one party is unwilling to follow the rules, why is it incumbent on the other party to do so?  From Klavan's view, if both sides seek to squelch the other's free speech, free speech suffers and may be stamped out.  Then again, if both sides are using the tactic, a truce might result in a status quo ante for free speech (i.e. no more heckling or disrupting each other's events).  The right has generally followed Klavan's preferred tactic and the heckling and disruptions of right-leaning events have escalated to Berkeley and Middlebury.  Among the commenters, many railed that Loomer was exercising her free speech and get back to them when a Berkeley-like riot is staged by the right.

 

Is it better to lose with your principles intact or win with them broken and in need of repair?  Lincoln breeched the Constitutional limits on several occasions in order to win the Civil War.  The damage he inflicted to the Constitution is still felt to this day but he saved the Union.  Was it worth it?  At this point, I would have to side with Klavan.  The Republicans secured both houses of Congress and the Presidency without disrupting Democratic rallies, speeches, and mock assassinations.  Why start now?

Identify the Fascist

During the recent excitement at Berkeley, there was a clash of opinion that turned violent.  One party is accusing the other party of being fascist while claiming the title of 'anti-fascist.'  Can you find the anti-fascist?

Option 1: A gay, Jewish immigrant with a black boyfriend was on campus for a scheduled speech.

Option 2: Protestors who oppose the views that will be expressed in said speech detonated home-made explosives, shattered windows, and lit property on fire.

 

Yes, Option 2 was obviously the correct choice.  Some microaggressions - like inappropriate opinions - entirely justify retaliatory macroaggressions.  To prevent such speakers from being heard, it is often necessary to use extreme measures.

 

It is amazing how violent and/or destructive these leftist movements keep proving to be.  Occupy Wall Street was a cesspool of litter, vandalism, and rape.  Those who protested at Trump's inauguration set fire to a limo and shattered windows at various businesses. The Women's March even had a speaker pondering the destruction of the White House.  Fascist means to anti-fascist end?

Too Much News

So much is happening in so short a period of time that I would have to be a fulltime blogger to get even close to commenting on all of it.  However, here are some thoughts on recent developments:

1. Senate Committee rule change: It has long been practice that members of both party need to be present for a vote on a nominee.  The Democrats have used this rule to prevent votes by not being present.  This was used to the extreme by Wisconsin Democrats trying to thwart Governor Walker's reforms, which included them fleeing the state!  Committee Chairman Hatch altered the rules to allow for a vote with those present.  I suspect the purpose of the rule was to prevent the majority from meeting secretly to move nominees and bills out of committee and intentional absence was not an expected tactic.  Such childish antics explain the low approval ratings of Congress and government.

 

2. Neil Gorsuch nomination: It is always best to have justices who understand that it is up to the legislature to write law, not the courts.  Far too many subjects are decided by courts writing laws and framing it as existing rights.  That he was unanimously approved for his current position in 2006 is good maneuvering by the Trump Administration.  It used to be that nominations were not so contentious, because the court wasn't nearly as important as it has become.  Antonin Scalia was approved 98 to 0 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg won with 96 to 3.  Gorsuch will be lucky if he gets 60 in favor.  If courts would refrain from legislating, we could return to the ho-hum confirmation process.  Yeah, that's not going to happen.

 

3. Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary: Though she is out of committee, two Republican Senators have stated their intention to vote against.  A party line vote would give her a 50-50 split which VP Pence would presumably decide in DeVos's favor.  As someone who would like to abolish the Department of Education, I am mostly indifferent to who is in charge.  When did the Constitution get amended to expand federal authority to education?  In any case, US education has been static - at best - since the creation of the department, demonstrating how useless it is.

 

4. Barack Obama speaks: Not even two weeks and Obama feels the need to offer his opinion.  I'm not sure George W Bush ever said anything in opposition to Obama though Obama spent most of his first term blaming Bush for the state of everything.  Even so, Bush remained silent and allowed the new president to take the world stage.  Some ex-presidents have class.

 

5. Military Action against Mexico: Apparently Trump had a phone conversation with Pena Nieto and suggested that he deal with the cartels or perhaps the US military might.  Wow, that escalated fast.  The US has intervened militarily in Mexico in the past.  When Pancho Villa raided into the US, President Wilson dispatched a Punitive Expedition led by General Pershing.  Wilson also occupied Vera Cruz.  It is extremely unlikely that US forces actually march into Mexico but hinting at the possibility could certainly prompt Mexico to crackdown.  Bullying or smart diplomacy?

 

6. Frenetic Trump: That may not be the right adjective but it certainly seems appropriate to an outside observer.  There is something new always happening.  No one would accuse Trump of being 'low energy.'  In a way, his tactics so far remind me of a military campaign.  Shock and awe is surely what Washington is feeling.  This high-speed activity is not how things are normally done.  However, that may be the point.  The opposition is off-balance.  Heck, even the allies are off-balance.  It remains to be seen how successful this strategy will be.  Did he use this technique in the many deals he has struck over the years?

 

7. Berkeley Riot: The self-described 'Dangerous Faggot' was scheduled to speak at Berkeley but protests turned to a riot.  Do these students not realize that this sort of 'tolerance' of opposing views is part of the reason Trump was elected?  Each time one of these protests make the news, more people wonder what Milo is saying to incite it.  Curious, they look on YouTube.  This is how I became aware of Milo and now he is a rising star with a huge book deal and multiplying appearances.  It reminds me of how every time Obama would call for reasonable gun legislation, gun sales would sky rocket.  Counter-productive.

 

I wonder how much has happened while I've been blogging.