Our "liberal" media finally get around to covering the armed right-wing violence at a Democrat-sponsored voter registration drive in Tyler, TX over a month ago -- but even now they can't get it right! Even with an extra month of lead time! Luckily Dorothee Benz at FAIR helps us sift through all the lousy reporting, where "fights break out" and "disturbances happen" without any apparent causes and "people on both sides" are always to blame, even in "liberal" media reports like the Washington Post report of August 27 documenting eight incidents of right-wing violence and one incident of left-wing violence. Ms. Benz also reminds us (because, sadly, we need reminding!) that "privatized violence aimed at popular democratic demands is a hallmark of right-wing authoritarianism," and we can rather easily document how this trend's operating right here in America right now. One more thing: given the truck caravans that have rolled through protests across America (not just in Portland), how long before the pick-up truck stops being a symbol of hard work and starts being a symbol of racism?
Speaking of right-wing violence at protests, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) opines that infamous militia member Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three protestors in Kenosha over a week ago, actually showed "incredible restraint." If you wonder why someone shows up to a protest armed, or have seen him shoot two protestors plainly trying to disarm him, you'll be surprised, but let's let Mr. Massie explain further: "(h)e didn't empty a magazine into a crowd." What a low bar to set! He "showed restraint" because he only shot three people instead of a hundred! I'm old enough to remember when conservatives demanded a lot more of us (and each other) than that! Mr. Massie would have earned more sympathy if he'd pointed out that Mr. Rittenhouse is only 17 and shouldn't be tried as an adult; instead, the man who wouldn't ban semiautomatics because someone-somewhere can turn a rifle into a semiautomatic seems, again, only to care about protecting guns. No, not even "gun rights" -- as Russell Kirk used to say, rights have responsibilities.
What's the worst thing about our President calling dead soldiers "suckers" and "losers"? He's wrong! I think soldiers who die at war are generally the best ones, and their officers more likely just figured out how to get others to die in their place. All of which means I'm not surprised by our President's remarks, for who is better at screwing other people over just to protect himself than he? Here's what surprises me: he's been way too slow to portray these remarks as anti-war -- they would be pretty damn clumsy anti-war statements, true, but not irredeemably so, and they might also get that sliver of the anti-war vote he's going to need to get re-elected. He seems content with calling everyone a liar and speculating about who might have "betrayed" him, as any drama king would do. So, when our President said all the generals were stupid, his votaries could tell themselves he wasn't talking about the rank and file, but now that he's said the rank and file are "suckers" and "losers," how will they respond? I kid, of course -- they just say whatever makes them think they're owning the liberals.