If (subjunctive mood) a country of wild warriors used the concept of spreading "freedom of speech" as a red herring for wars of aggression disguised as altruistic wars for humanitarian reasons and the dissemination of democracy in despotic lands, would anyone be surprised if a fellow, who believed the "tell it like it is" meme, was soundly condemned for providing an opposing point of view?
Progressive talk radio host Mike Malloy has become embroiled in such an oxymoron situation because he mused (on air) about the possibility that George W. Bush ordering of some military action which precipitated a massive amount of collateral damage in the form of civilian death and injury augmented by a massive amount of damage to the host country's infrastructure might have an amazing degree of similarity to Hitler's methodology, which is often exemplified by the unfortunate and regrettable bombing of Rotterdam. The authorities in Rotterdam had sent word to the German military that Rotterdam was to be accorded "open city" status. Regrettably that bit of intelligence was not relayed in a timely manner to the troops and Rotterdam was reduced to rubble.
Freedom of Speech was one of the four Freedoms for which the United States fought in World War II. Therefore the thought that some à ¼ber-patriotic members of the Teabag branch of the Republican Party would not apply the old "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" philosophy to some freewheeling, stream-of-consciousness dialogue is an incomprehensible contradiction, but like the WMD's, the word that Rotterdam was an open city, and the science fiction stories about polar bears facing extinction because folks are running their vacuum cleaners too often, a miscommunication occurred and people have challenged Malloy not for the fact-checking reasons but because they wanted to apply the Archie Bunker rule: "Stifle!"
Inadvertently, Malloy's efforts to point out the philosophical oxymoron have only goaded his critics into some overzealous examples of their own subjunctive mood speculation that comes perilously close to being un-Christian threats against the health of him and his family. Obviously this situation is not the time for Malloy to echo the "Bring it on!" Bush style swagger.
Is there a teabagger who hasn't read Walter Van Tilburg Clark's classic novel, "The Ox-Bow Incident"? Shouldn't Malloy calmly and rationally use that example of American pop culture to subtly point out the error of their aggressive rebuttals? Isn't it à ¼ber-ironic that they should be attacking him for exorcizing one of the rights they are prepared to die for to defend?
Perhaps, Malloy's lapse in logic is his assumption that the "We're just good patriotic Americans" crowd is castigating him for using his right to freedom of speech?
This may sound a tad "conspiracy-theory-nut"-ish, but could it (that pesky subjunctive mood rears its ugly head again) be that the folks who are sending him the acerbic missives are radical Muslims disguising themselves as teabaggers to carry out a fatwa against Malloy ordered by some mullah? Don't all mullah's look alike in their turbans and robes?
Don't death threats sound more Sharia law-ish than something that patriotic Americans would advocate as a response to the opposing point of view?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
