AZ mourning service gear


pippi

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I speculated...everything about O'bama is well scripted...

Some folks have argued that the "applause" that appeared on the jumbo tron at the Memorial Service was because it was close captioned.

I don't know, but I would like to see if there were other statements on the tron for when there was "cheering" or other expressions from the audience.

I saw a screen shot wherein you could see the word (APPLAUSE), but that would also appear if the speech was close captioned on the jumbo tron screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see that the mourning gear discussion has gone to its proper place, about political strategy, at the proper time, which is after the bodies have cooled and been buried.

When I first saw Pippi's grotesque comment shortly after the service, I realized that all it meant to me, really, was, what would, or should, and individual do, when taking part in such an event, conducted by the leader of the nation? Knowing that it will be seen by the entire nation?

All I could do was imagine myself into it. I imagined it happened in Calgary and I was a lecturer or student or secretary there, and I had the chance to go to the ceremony. Or I was a citizen who knew one of the victims slightly. Or anybody else.

I didn't vote for Stephen Harper. He is a fairly ruthless politician whose policies could harm me. That said, he's very intelligent,plays a mean piano, is writing a book on hockey, and his wife and kids are great. I don't want him to be reelected.

At the ceremony there are t-shirts with obviously political messages,though they might look innocuous, say "Living for Liberty".I am encouraged to put one on. Maybe I can't get into the ceremony without doing that. At the ceremony I might be coerced into applauding on cue.

Would I go there, do that, put on the t-shirt?

I know what I would have done at the University of Calgary after my neighbours had been murdered.

What would you have done in Tucson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

I would have found out where a vigil was being held. If there was not one, I would have started one at a local church, Masonic Temple, etc.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

I would have found out where a vigil was being held. If there was not one, I would have started one at a local church, Masonic Temple, etc.

Adam

Thank you for your answer. I am genuinely interested to know what everyone who has thought about this hypothetical situation would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

I would have found out where a vigil was being held. If there was not one, I would have started one at a local church, Masonic Temple, etc.

Adam

Thank you for your answer. I am genuinely interested to know what everyone who has thought about this hypothetical situation would do.

This "situation" isn't hypothetical (if you think so please explain)). What did you do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pippi, the situation is hypothetical for everyone who was not in Tucson on that day, faced with the choice/opportunity to go to the memorial service, under the conditions described.

I did not describe my own hypothetical choice, because I don;t want to set a proposition for debate. I just really want to know what other people would do, as an exertion of their personal morality. Their practical objectivism, if you want to put it like that. I really just want to know, and furthermore if you and others will tell me, I will make no replies to the answers.

Anyway, I asked you first: What would you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw Pippi's grotesque comment shortly after the service...

Daunce,

Let's unpack this "grotesque" thing.

I understood Pippi perfectly, possibly because we hold similar views. But as this was a highly emotional moment, I observed that the people on each side did not understand each other, almost on purpose, and they dug in--like the present considering the response of the other "grotesque."

Let's translate the underlying messages a little bit--how we perceived the event at the time.

I believe your perception was something like the following: Will these people even use a funeral to sneak in Obama-hate under the strong emotions? What about decency? That's grotesque.

(Actually the equivalent of a funeral, but you know what I mean.)

Now a translation from Pippi's side (and mine, to be frank): Will these people even use a funeral to sneak in a collectivist political agenda under the strong emotions? What about decency? That's grotesque.

I don't believe--for both sides--that gross manipulation was the intent of the normal participants or viewers--or anyone on this forum, either. I do believe the ring-leaders on each side saw their chance and went for it.

Underlying all this--for normal folks--is an enormous irritation with all the constant bickering and the sense that we are all being manipulated. I don't know how you feel, but I just want it all to stop. So it's easy for the normal folks to call each other "grotesque" when they disagree or perceive things from a different perspective.

Maybe we should be looking at the real culprits and not so much at each other. When we do that to each other, we play right into the hands of the ring-leaders.

They want us to do that.

If you know where to look, you will see, on both sides, lurking in the backrooms, plenty more government just waiting for a chance to become imposed on everyone with a public sanction. (There are even more than two sides, but I'm trying to keep this simple.)

I say let's not give it to them.

Especially when they use things like a funeral to sneak in enmity under the strong emotions. What about decency? That's grotesque.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw Pippi's grotesque comment shortly after the service...

Daunce,

I believe your perception was something like the following: Will these people even use a funeral to sneak in Obama-hate under the strong emotions? What about decency? That's grotesque.

No, it wasn't. It certainly was under strong emotion, but my perception was exactly as I described it: a person whose first impulse was not to mourn but to jeer, who seemed to me, in effect, to be one of the manipulators you describe. It would not matter to me if he was jeering at Obama, Palin, Churchill or Hitler.

You forget that I'm not American, I'm not especially interested in American politics, and I don't see political struggles as a battle for the future of mankind.

(I have a good friend with a lifelong passion for politics, especially American, and I would say of the two of us I am definitely the happier person.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw Pippi's grotesque comment shortly after the service...

Daunce,

Let's unpack this "grotesque" thing.

Especially when they use things like a funeral to sneak in enmity under the strong emotions. What about decency? That's grotesque.

Michael

Excellent post Michael!!! I of course agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first saw Pippi's grotesque comment shortly after the service...

Daunce,

Let's unpack this "grotesque" thing.

Especially when they use things like a funeral to sneak in enmity under the strong emotions. What about decency? That's grotesque.

Michael

Excellent post Michael!!! I of course agree 100%.

I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

further, to Pippi:

You have frequently complained that my writing is unclear and incoherent, so I will do my best to be clear and coherent here.

Why have you not answered the question I clearly posed? It was not about Obama or media manipulators. It was about practical Objectivism, in which you are interested. What does an objectivist do in a morally ambiguous hypothetical situation such as I clearly described? It did hapen in Tucson. It could have happened in Calgary or in Deadman Covert, NH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

further, to Pippi:

You have frequently complained that my writing is unclear and incoherent, so I will do my best to be clear and coherent here.

Why have you not answered the question I clearly posed? It was not about Obama or media manipulators. It was about practical Objectivism, in which you are interested. What does an objectivist do in a morally ambiguous hypothetical situation such as I clearly described? It did hapen in Tucson. It could have happened in Calgary or in Deadman Covert, NH.

Still waiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. It certainly was under strong emotion, but my perception was exactly as I described it: a person whose first impulse was not to mourn but to jeer, who seemed to me, in effect, to be one of the manipulators you describe. It would not matter to me if he was jeering at Obama, Palin, Churchill or Hitler.

Daunce,

You just said what I said.

I am a conceptual thinker, not a nit-picking thinker. My focus was not so much on the politics as the character. (This was illustrated by the part, "What about decency? That's grotesque.") I was using "Obama" and "collectivist political agenda" as examples to illustrate character. I was not using character to illustrate politics.

Believe me, you do not have a monopoly on perceiving character.

So, to repeat, we essentially are saying the same thing.

Let me put it in different words, though, since you are still in Daunce/Angel, Pipp/Devil mode.

  • Your side thinks Pippi's side jeered instead of mourned.
  • Pippi's side thinks your side cynically promoted propaganda instead of mourned.

I continue to maintain that only the ring-leaders were spiritually in these mindsets. And, to be honest, I don't think they give a damn which cup of Kool-Aid the pubic drinks, cherry or grape, so long as people drink the Kool-Aid of enmity.

I invite you to ponder this from my angle.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. It certainly was under strong emotion, but my perception was exactly as I described it: a person whose first impulse was not to mourn but to jeer, who seemed to me, in effect, to be one of the manipulators you describe. It would not matter to me if he was jeering at Obama, Palin, Churchill or Hitler.

Daunce,

You just said what I said.

I am a conceptual thinker, not a nit-picking thinker. My focus was not so much on the politics as the character. (This was illustrated by the part, "What about decency? That's grotesque.") I was using "Obama" and "collectivist political agenda" as examples to illustrate character. I was not using character to illustrate politics.

Believe me, you do not have a monopoly on perceiving character.

So, to repeat, we essentially are saying the same thing.

Let me put it in different words, though, since you are still in Daunce/Angel, Pipp/Devil mode.

  • Your side thinks Pippi's side jeered instead of mourned.
  • Pippi's side thinks your side cynically promoted propaganda instead of mourned.

I continue to maintain that only the ring-leaders were spiritually in these mindsets. And, to be honest, I don't think they give a damn which cup of Kool-Aid the pubic drinks, cherry or grape, so long as people drink the Kool-Aid of enmity.

I invite you to ponder this from my angle.

Michael

Well bro, I've pondered and I still think your angle is skewed on this one. I'm not much of a conceptual thinker (two conceptions were plenty thanks)

but my perceptions here were much like yours (sides-takers as pawns of ringleaders and manipulators). I perceived Pippi as a wannabe manipulator,

though certainly not as the devil. Of course, I'd always want to be on the side of the angels (who wouldn't?)but that was not my issue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perceived Pippi as a wannabe manipulator, though certainly not as the devil.

Daunce,

May I suggest youthful fire--or excessive zeal if you prefer to use that kind of language?

That's not a bad thing for folks like us to remember, is it?

I think Pippi rocks, even when her enthusiasm and passions bubble over--or maybe even because of this. As she takes her falls (like life makes us all do), may also achieve great things, grow strong in spirit and never become broken. That's what I wish for her.

I don't see a manipulator at all in Pippi. I see a seeker.

To be honest, Daunce, a few kind and objective words from me gave her far more pause to think about things than all that righteous condemnation you have leveled at her. (My words came from the heart, too.) From what little I have seen, Pippi is a good person, as are you.

What do you really want? Would you extinguish youthful fire to foster a self-image of political and/or moral righteousness?

I don't find that a good choice for my life.

I believe we can have it all (usually). That's my default path.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perceived Pippi as a wannabe manipulator, though certainly not as the devil.

Daunce,

May I suggest youthful fire--or excessive zeal if you prefer to use that kind of language?

What do you really want? Would you extinguish youthful fire to foster a self-image of political righteousness?

I don't find that a good choice for my life.

Michael

Michael that was so wonderful, I thank you, thank you, thank you!!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perceived Pippi as a wannabe manipulator, though certainly not as the devil.

Daunce,

May I suggest youthful fire--or excessive zeal if you prefer to use that kind of language?

That's not a bad thing for folks like us to remember, is it?

I think Pippi rocks, even when her enthusiasm and passions bubble over--or maybe even because of this. As she takes her falls (like life makes us all do), may also achieve great things, grow strong in spirit and never become broken. That's what I wish for her.

I don't see a manipulator at all in Pippi. I see a seeker.

To be honest, Daunce, a few kind and objective words from me gave her far more pause to think about things than all the righteous condemnation you have leveled at her. (My words came from the heart, too.) From what little I have seen, Pippi is a good person, as are you.

Would you extinguish youthful fire to foster a self-image of political righteousness?

I don't find that a good choice for my life.

Michael

Well, I don't like you thinking of me as politically self-righteous, but if you do, you do. You're the first person I know of who has ever thought so.

I set myself on fire once (true story, it's in the GHS-McElroy thread somewhere as an interjection). An unforgettable experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited the phrase to "self-image of political and/or moral righteousness" as our posts crossed. And a few other additions.

Here is the ending once again:

What do you really want? Would you extinguish youthful fire to foster a self-image of political and/or moral righteousness?

I don't find that a good choice for my life.

I believe we can have it all (usually). That's my default path.

Sometimes you can't control these things...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is wrong in so many ways-it is tacky, heartless, embarrassing and kind of sick.

A mourning LOGO, Tshirt and pamphlet?

They should have just slapped a picture of a sheep on each shirt.

capt.ffb533d16d6548058df1085e682a679d-ffb533d16d6548058df1085e682a679d-0.jpg?x=400&y=260&q=85&sig=N.QAYDWiArwIBAgBew2bkw--

r51761037.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=OifOdU6giu2Orl0uklUQMQ--

r3825686531.jpg?x=400&y=277&q=85&sig=1oH4fOeqkiDjP9t9KJbEOA--

-source-Drudge Report

The Blue Shirts march again.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now