RAGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

As most of you know by now, I'm a big proponent of free speech. Time and time again I've railed on about the squelching of free speech by advocates, Universities, schools, conservatives and even the Internet. Here's a great example of how Universities are doing it again, thanks to Nic for providing the link. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/23/professor.fired.ap/index.html

However, if you've been reading me for very long, you also know that I always include this caveat when talking about free speech, "Except for calling for direct violence." We all know that free speech has some limits, and where those limits are is open for debate. My University, for example, writes limits on me into my contract. I can not call my University out by name on anything that it does or I'll risk being terminated. (The reason I write under a pseudonym and hide my face). I guess I really don't have that big a problem with it, they do, after all, pay me. The question is; what would they consider to be problem speech? I basically worry every time I mention my opposition to gun control, gay marriage, or radical advocacy. I do however agree with them on one issue, no one should be calling for direct violence.

Which leads me to why I'm writing this post.

It seems the other day (4/30) Rage Against the Machines' current frontman, Zach De La Rocha went into a tirade against the Bush Administration during one of their concerts. Now, I really don't care in the least what a band that is so pitiful they couldn't even write good music with Chris Cornell, a gifted voice and songwriter, has to say about politics. But, there is an issue here that is far larger than the rantings of a third tier singer. During their song "Wake up", Mr. De La Rocha called for the Bush Administration to be "tried, hung and shot.". That, I feel, is a clear violation of the limits of freedom of speech, and I'm going to tell you why, and why I feel all of us, even you Bush-Haters, should not tolerate it.

As I pointed out in my post on dehumanizing, there is nothing scarier then the act of reducing someone to a group and then using that dehumanization to justify violence against them. This is true no matter who you're doing this to. By reducing Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice and all the rest of the executive branch to "The Bush Administration" you have separated yourself from the reality of Bush, the father to his twins, Cheney, the father of his daughters, or Rice the daughter of her mother. It's O.K. to dislike what the Bush Administration has done, to disagree with their policies, or to even organize and fight against the policies of the Bush Administration that you disagree with. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that makes you patriotic. But to call for the death of someone because you disagree with them in a country where an avenue is available to have non-violent change is despicable.

I would also like to point out how far that could take us.

I don't really care for Bill Maher. I know he's just a comedian, but that smirky, "I'm way smarter than anyone" attitude makes me desperately want to see someone, anyone, slap that smirk off his face. Should I therefore call for people to kill him? No, I don't think I should encourage that kind of behavior. Lot's of people can get on your nerves in this life and what kind of a civil society are we running where people are attacked, even killed, just because we don't like them? It also encourages more bad behavior. If it's O.K. for me to want the President killed, why not my parents? Why not my boss? Why not anyone who pisses me off in any way? As much as President Bush is a failure in my eyes as a President, we did in fact elect him to do the job. And it's not an easy job. It's entirely possible that he's simply over his head and can't handle what we put before him, in that case, push for impeachment. If it should happen that you can't make a case against him that warrants removing him from office in the eyes of the majority of the people, that does not give you the right to be disrespectful or violent. When did we get so misguided that we started thinking that we had the right to be disrespectful, even violent towards anyone we disagree with? Is it any wonder you have kids attacking their teachers? Attacking their parents? Picking on old people? Calling women bitches and hoes?

As we look out over the landscape of the society of this country, isn't it time we started holding people responsible for encouraging people to act out as opposed to settling things civilly? Is it any wonder young kids think people deserve a beating, or to be shot, over minor disagreements? If we can't even show some respect in our disagreement with the President, how can we expect anyone to show us any, when we are far less important. I'm sure that there will be a lot of people who will try to defend Rage Against the Machine, in fact I've already seen them, but just as I would not advocate people calling for violence against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, or anyone else, I can't defend what can only be described as hate speech by a hateful, hypocritical, left-wing nut. H.C.