When actor/comedian Patton Oswalt posted about the Boston bombings on his Facebook page the other day, it quickly went viral for its impact. He questioned humanity in one way, but also reaffirmed his faith in it, citing the fact that so many people ran toward the victims to help, rather than away from them. It really was a great post, but Oswalt’s closing comment gave me pause. He said, "So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, 'The good outnumber you, and we always will.'"
I agree one hundred percent with what he says. The good will always outnumber the evil. I also reject bigotry, intolerance and misogyny, as well as the other things he cited. With apologies to Mr. Oswalt, though (because I don’t mean to assume what he meant by his words), but something about them made me cringe.
Maybe I’m hypersensitive, but for so long now the left has portrayed conservatives as all those things: intolerant, bigoted, misogynist and hateful. I am not saying Oswalt is a “leftist” – I don’t really know what his politics are exactly (though he has expressed outright hatred for Bush and Romney, which may give a clue) but I do know that the words he used have been buzzwords the left regularly uses to malign conservatives. Conservatives who don't wish to pay for someone's birth control for religious reasons must hate women. Those who want to keep the right to protect their families by owning a gun are violent. Those who want to uphold traditional marriage as defined in the Bible are bigoted.
When I read Oswalt's post on Facebook, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was subtly associating the bombings in Boston with supposedly “misogynist, violent, bigoted” conservatives. I am not putting the implication of those words in Oswalt’s mouth. I just wonder how many people, in reading those words and having heard those exact words used so frequently to describe conservatives, took his words to mean that conservatives would likely have been responsible for the bombings. If so, then as a result, without having done anything wrong, conservatives are once again condemned, marginalized and persecuted.
Where Oswalt's ponderings may be covert in their intended target (if that's even what he was doing), others are outright overt in their attempts to pin the Boston bombings on the right side of the aisle. For instance, NPR's Dina Temple-Raston had this to say: "The thinking, as we have been reporting, is that this is a domestic, extremist attack and officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack. April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There’s the Columbine anniversary, there’s Hitler’s birthday, and the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.”
Sorry, but wasn't it liberal leftist Janet Reno who approved the FBI assault on Waco? And what do Columbine and Hitler have to do with this? Then again, what do facts matter when the left can use a tragedy to further advance their own political agenda by casting conservatives in a negative light?
But I wonder, now that the bombing suspects have been identified as Chechen Muslims with supposed jihadist ties, if that turns out to be true, will the rhetoric of the Patton Oswalts and Dina Temple-Rastons of the world shift toward exposing radical Islam's hatred for western culture, or would that be too politically incorrect? Will such acts of violence like the one in Boston be cited for what they are, or will it just remain easier to fire cheap, veiled shots at conservatives, while giving terrorists a pass?
It remains to be seen, but continuing to treat terrorists with kid gloves only denies the ideological underpinning of what drives them to commit deadly attacks. It's time to call a spade a spade, and stop being so fearful of offending those who wouldn't think twice about killing us.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
Where Oswalt's ponderings may be covert in their intended target (if that's even what he was doing), others are outright overt in their attempts to pin the Boston bombings on the right side of the aisle. For instance, NPR's Dina Temple-Raston had this to say: "The thinking, as we have been reporting, is that this is a domestic, extremist attack and officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack. April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There’s the Columbine anniversary, there’s Hitler’s birthday, and the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.”
Sorry, but wasn't it liberal leftist Janet Reno who approved the FBI assault on Waco? And what do Columbine and Hitler have to do with this? Then again, what do facts matter when the left can use a tragedy to further advance their own political agenda by casting conservatives in a negative light?
But I wonder, now that the bombing suspects have been identified as Chechen Muslims with supposed jihadist ties, if that turns out to be true, will the rhetoric of the Patton Oswalts and Dina Temple-Rastons of the world shift toward exposing radical Islam's hatred for western culture, or would that be too politically incorrect? Will such acts of violence like the one in Boston be cited for what they are, or will it just remain easier to fire cheap, veiled shots at conservatives, while giving terrorists a pass?
It remains to be seen, but continuing to treat terrorists with kid gloves only denies the ideological underpinning of what drives them to commit deadly attacks. It's time to call a spade a spade, and stop being so fearful of offending those who wouldn't think twice about killing us.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
