First, she's freaking out because a marine who is running for public office refers to himself as a "warrior." She thinks this terminology is some sort of secret code to extremist tin foil hat types, apparently.
Next, she's breaking out a major upgrade in the Reasoned Discourse level. Interestingly, she refers to her new commenting guidelines as "Rules of Engagement." If I were crazy, then I'd think that this was some sort of "secret code." I mean, why use a militarized phrase that practically reeks of conflict and violence? There were plenty of words with non-military etymologies such as "Commenting Guidelines," "Comment Policy," "Discussion Rules," and so on.
I think this is another case of double standards. I remember after the tragedy where Gabby Giffords was shot, the gun control folks and media (but I repeat myself) trotted out a graphic from Sarah Palin calling on folks to "target" various seats. Interestingly, even though the DNC using exactly the same language, graphics, and rhetoric, they got a free pass. Even more ironically, the progressive "Mother Goose" blog had written a vitriolic piece attacking Rep Giffords just prior to the shooting and calling for her to be targeted as she was a blue dog heretic, but that got flushed down the memory hole too.
If it is inappropriate to militarize our civil discourse in a given context, then it is inappropriate for both sides to do so. If one takes that view, then one might make an exception for speakers who are actually in the military or who study military science, or for different contexts where such language is appropriate (for example, discussing drone strikes in Pakistan would be an appropriate time to talk about "rules of engagement"). It seems to reek of at least irony if not offensive double-standards for Joan to blast a veteran for referring to his honorable service and then turn around and use militarized language herself to advance her cause without a second thought.
Unfortunately for us, Joan et al are Trying To Save Lives, and due to that holy crusade they have shouldered, any tactic, any method, and any mentality is accept able to them when they do it... in fact, when they do it, those tactics/methods/mentalities take on a certain sanctity themselves, since they are being wielded for The Greater Good.
ReplyDeleteJust think about the way she holds up the supposed comments she receives but "has" to delete as examples of how firearm owners, as a whole, cannot behave, yet when we hold her up as an example of all anti-rights cultists, or point to some other "gun control" supporter and attempt to draw parallels, she flies right off the handle.
Her issue was never with "militarized language" - that little charade was nothing more than yet another bald-faced attempt to forcibly silence her opponents, this time by once again speciously playing the role of "victim". After all, if she could parlay her not-really-victimhood into national attention and a seat on the Brady Board, why should she not wield it in an attempt to suppress her detractors?