tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post3590036682615705721..comments2024-03-28T14:52:13.218-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: Some Thoughts on Westboro Baptist Church And The 1st AmendmentJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-22264899608138728832011-03-03T08:25:13.030-06:002011-03-03T08:25:13.030-06:00Jim, you and I both know that we and Lance Corpora...Jim, you and I both know that we and Lance Corporal Snyder fought for was the belief that low life scum like Westboro can live in a world where they have the right to spew what ever scum like thoughts run through their tiny ungrateful minds. Agree or disagree with their rantings, to try and silence them contradicts what so many have sacrificed for. If only those disrespectful assholes realized that the ONLY reason the can speak out at the funerals of our nations fallen heroes is because of those very individuals they are damning to hell.Sean Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012338381246789298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-1904162803243214872010-04-10T13:27:20.773-05:002010-04-10T13:27:20.773-05:00i have only two words to say Sir, Thank you *salut...i have only two words to say Sir, Thank you *salutes*JarheadJournalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07129265452987178966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-41071919443930285102010-04-08T14:29:01.490-05:002010-04-08T14:29:01.490-05:00Gooness gracious! For somebody who doesn't ev...Gooness gracious! For somebody who doesn't even bother to admit to their name, Anonymous sure does act as though their word is law. <br /><br />I especially love the chiding for Jim's lack of knowledge regarding Anonymous' blog. You'd think someone with such a desire to show off their vocabulary (so much so that actual content seems to matter little) would be able to grasp sarcasm. <br /><br />I oughta track him/her down and wreak violence upon him/her. I'm sure, somehow, this would be the fault of Jim and/or Janiece. <br /><br />Jim - as for your actual post, I'm inclined to agree with you, for exactly the reasons you stated. I'd love to see the WBC pay, but I'm partial to free speech, and can't see a way in which the SCOTUS could rule in favor of Mr. Snyder without opening up a figurative can of worms.A different Heathernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-54478633292758608882010-04-08T09:22:23.299-05:002010-04-08T09:22:23.299-05:00Anonymous, you're not my moral compass. You wi...Anonymous, you're not my moral compass. You will never be my moral compass. You can drop the entire "If I were you..." bit right now. You're not me and you have no rights expressed nor implied to make me your pet project for man improvement.<br /><br />How I respond to commenters or deal with trolls such as yourself is not up for discussion. I don't care if you don't like it, you have two options 1) stop acting like an asshole, 2) go away.<br /><br />Now you're done here. Any further comments from you will be deleted.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-66916348230933022072010-04-08T04:10:12.173-05:002010-04-08T04:10:12.173-05:00And I thought that *I* was caloric writer! Wow!And I thought that *I* was caloric writer! Wow!beemodernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180046342466780318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-27182340049610912042010-04-08T03:41:01.191-05:002010-04-08T03:41:01.191-05:00Amongst all of your several ill-founded presumptio...Amongst all of your several ill-founded presumptions, Jim, two stick out.<br />'<br />One being, ...that I may be 'disappointed'.<br /><br />Two being, ....that you might confuse or conflate what goes on here with what goes on somewhere else. <br /><br />(Begging your pardon, but you've no cognition of any aspect of what goes on at my blog. ....and no, it's not Pissupawall.com) <br /><br />In any case, what goes on there is most assuredly, altogether irrelevant to the context of some issue or comment taking place within a separated context of writings occurring in an entirely different place.<br /><br />As far as 'liking you' goes, I fail to see any interconnection of how that might alter the observance about your suggestion of disappearing your antagonists. I'd not feel any constraint to raise such similar questions even if it came from family, so for my part, to question or confront anyone else in a similar fashion isn't anything I see as being inconsistent in my raising the question, nor would I ever feel I would or could confine such queries to only those who I may not 'like'.<br /><br />As to 'liking what you write', I've got a tremendous amount of respect for your writing, from the alacrity you demonstrate on which issues you choose to comment on, to almost all of your own mostly circumspect editorial observances.<br /><br /><br /><br />The only drawback I see is you seem a bit too tightly wound to address the atypical or anomalous seeming contradictions or inconsistencies in your editorial content. The rare and occasional reflection brought to your attention can sporadically devolve into a disproportionate, (and sometimes quite irrational), paroxysm.<br /><br />If I were you, I would reserve more of that rancor and vitriol you've expended for those occasions when you're confronted with the incivility of actual trolls.<br /><br />After all, what good are 'culturally shared social clues' if they aren't freely exchanged ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-80953582590118769222010-04-07T20:57:14.573-05:002010-04-07T20:57:14.573-05:00Anonymous
Making the assumption that only 're...Anonymous<br /><br /><i>Making the assumption that only 'reasonable persons' could possibly read and/or react to your public suggestions within only 'reasonable' self-imposed parameters you presume is to stretch the plausibility a might too far.</i><br /><br />Well I suspect that there is not one thing I can say that will pull you out of your smug self-righteousness, so I'm not going to bother. Suffice it to say that in this matter, and every other in my life, I'll use my definition. Thanks.<br /><br /><i>One of the 'features' of groups like the WBC is that the vision they insist others should adhere to is the only vision worth consideration. It's a feature of groups like that that anyone who dares bring a challenge to their beliefs should be minimized, degraded, intimidated, and summarily excluded.</i><br /><br />Yeah, me and Fred Phelps, hard to tell us apart. Thanks for the pointing that out. <br /><br /><i>Not to mention following up by demeaning and attempting to invalidate the crux of any challenge that doesn't demonstrate obeisance to their singularly narrow constraints. </i><br /><br />I calls 'em as I sees 'em, Anonymous. It's worked for me so far. How's it working on <i>your</i> blog?<br /><br /><i>Your suggestion that if I don't like it I should lump it smacks of the same kind of self-generated dogmatism and intolerant exclusivity.</i><br /><br />No, what I said, and what is clearly stated in the commenting rules - exactly as I pointed out on the <i>last</i> post you trolled - is that I am who I am, you're welcome read what I write, you're welcome comment on what I write up until you piss me off. You're also welcome to go elsewhere. You don't seem to like me much, you don't seem to like what I write. Frankly I don't understand what you're doing here unless you're a sadist or an evangelical. <br /><br /><i>I submit that however you choose to react to my observation, the observance stands as both a valid and respectable subject matter for reflection within the context of this issue and a simple matter of fact that needn't be under-rated nor attempted to be invalidated.</i><br /><br />I don't consider your view point valid. You're attempting to pin your jackassery on me from the cloak of anonymity, I'm not going to accept it. You're going to have to learn to live with that disappointment.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-74279026103714060652010-04-07T19:10:42.323-05:002010-04-07T19:10:42.323-05:00Does it rhyme with 'Tippecanoe?'Does it rhyme with 'Tippecanoe?'Pam Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-29377842466775676612010-04-07T15:04:30.692-05:002010-04-07T15:04:30.692-05:00@Anonymous (the one who wants to beat a dead horse...@Anonymous (the one who wants to beat a dead horse): The mistake you make is in assuming your thoughts and emotional responses are a "matter of fact."<br /><br />My read of Jim's answer to you is that he read and considered your comments; responded respectfully; read and considered the repeat of your initial comments; showed you respect by answering directly and forthrightly; and then using social intelligence and culturally shared social cues, let you know he was finished and moving on as there was nothing left to say.<br /><br />It's his blog. If you want to start a topic that lives on, including about Jim and his readers, you are always free to start your own blog. In this blog, however, if your only real interest is trying to piss higher than Jim in order to mark his territory, it's a boring read.beemodernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180046342466780318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-34150302387455816882010-04-07T14:24:06.793-05:002010-04-07T14:24:06.793-05:00Making the assumption that only 'reasonable pe...Making the assumption that only 'reasonable persons' could possibly read and/or react to your public suggestions within only 'reasonable' self-imposed parameters you presume is to stretch the plausibility a might too far.<br /><br />One of the 'features' of groups like the WBC is that the vision they insist others should adhere to is the only vision worth consideration. It's a feature of groups like that that anyone who dares bring a challenge to their beliefs should be minimized, degraded, intimidated, and summarily excluded.<br /><br />Not to mention following up by demeaning and attempting to invalidate the crux of any challenge that doesn't demonstrate obeisance to their singularly narrow constraints.<br /><br />Your suggestion that if I don't like it I should lump it smacks of the same kind of self-generated dogmatism and intolerant exclusivity.<br /><br />I submit that however you choose to react to my observation, the observance stands as both a valid and respectable subject matter for reflection within the context of this issue and a simple matter of fact that needn't be under-rated nor attempted to be invalidated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-70113053366575810062010-04-07T12:05:45.516-05:002010-04-07T12:05:45.516-05:00douchecanoe: If you say it outloud, it sounds Fren...douchecanoe: If you say it outloud, it sounds French - and therefor highbrow and sophisticated. It is the perfect insult.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-77061725562583069482010-04-07T12:03:43.886-05:002010-04-07T12:03:43.886-05:00Haha! I probably got that video from you, then! I...Haha! I probably got that video from you, then! It is brilliant, as are you. I'm thoroughly enjoying reading your posts. <br /><br />Janiece and Karl, I'm glad you got a kick out 'douchecanoe'. I can't claim to have coined it, but I get tickled every time I read or use it, too. :)Heathernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-54252906997922001622010-04-07T10:15:01.863-05:002010-04-07T10:15:01.863-05:00psst, Jim. If your Canadian Teabagger brick-throw...psst, Jim. If your Canadian Teabagger brick-throwing zombie minions invade could you ask them to bring beer? And some of that ham they put on pizza? Thanks.<br /><br />Excellent post, Jim. I came in to comment a few times yesterday between tasks and everything I wanted to say was already said, except for the 'bacon' thing...<br /><br />Janiece, I had to giggle too. At that and the image of 'Sherlock Hose and the Case of the Missing Douchebag'. (on a Conan-Doyle kick here, lately)Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11854671368992589012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-41792260194254931982010-04-07T09:19:56.075-05:002010-04-07T09:19:56.075-05:00Anonymous,
Janiece can speak for herself. As for...Anonymous,<br /><br /> Janiece can speak for herself. As for me, I'm not attempting to distance myself from anything. This is my site and unlike the folks you compared me to, I at least have the guts to own what I say.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to see my words however you like and I doubt that anything I say will change your opinion - and frankly I just don't care. <br /><br />Here's the bottom line, I was joking for the reasons I explained above. My sarcastic comments expresses how a great many of us veterans feel about WBC. This sarcasm is within the normal style I use here on Stonekettle Station. Is an expression of feeling, not a call to arms and any reasonable person should be able to figure that out. I like to think that I cultivate a higher level of intelligent reader than rabble rousers such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You may not agree, that's your opinion. <br /><br />Unlike the Tea Party, or members of the GOP I did not call for violence against anybody. I did not suggest you throw bricks through windows, I did not suggest you take up arms. I sarcastically referred to MY OWN hypothetical actions - I see this as no different from the previous post which was a humorous pillory of Sarah Palin's Alaskan reality show. <br /><br />The other difference is that while Stonekettle Station now gets several thousand readers a day, most are not insane Tea Party zombies who will jump to my beck and call - in fact a significant fraction are Canadian, so I don't think we need to worry about them crossing the boarder to do WBC harm.<br /><br />Now, I'm done justifying my actions and my words. This is how I write. Smart assed sarcastic comments are part of my charm, if I had any friends you could ask them. <br /><br />If you don't like it, then go elsewhere.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-70263830049638228762010-04-07T08:54:51.627-05:002010-04-07T08:54:51.627-05:00While I do agree with Jim in general and as my onl...While I do agree with Jim in general and as my only child is openly gay and way over 30, I don't ever see a military funeral in my future, other than perhaps mine.<br /><br />However I did shoot Expert once, long ago. Phelps and those that scatter in the right direction would be unlikely to protest a second time. Yes it would be wrong in a general sense, but I could face a life in prison or a gallows with no doubt in my mind.<br /><br />And I will be sending Snyder a check if the Supremes uphold the court costs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-82949492775258704412010-04-07T07:07:52.905-05:002010-04-07T07:07:52.905-05:00"goading the unbalanced among the tea party, ..."goading the unbalanced among the tea party, or the anti-abortionist extremists, who then, as we know all too well, go on to act on the suggestion of violence."<br /><br />I've yet to read anything unbalanced or extremist here, and that includes responses to Jim's posts. Except for the overgeneralizing equating posters here to the disrespectfully cruel, dangerous nut-jobs like the WBC.beemodernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180046342466780318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-85786546700856543382010-04-07T06:54:43.018-05:002010-04-07T06:54:43.018-05:00Anonymous: I beg to differ. I do not know anyone o...Anonymous: I beg to differ. I do not know anyone on this site, yet I knew all mentions of violence were merely jokes. I didn't take a one of them seriously.<br /><br />The jokes made here among these few are not in Any way "just like" the hate filled call to spiritual arms made by the WBC pinheads or the many like them. Staging highly visible "protests" and inflaming large numbers of people with senseless fear of difference, anger, and a sense of warrior for God, especially inflaming those unstable enough to actually buy in, is not the same as a few people who are exactly the opposite, and therefore cannot be whipped into a mob-like frenzy, making a few jokes between them. <br /><br />Jim and Janiece are not going to "goad" any of their readers into violence for which they will then be culpable. The main reason for that is that their readers are intelligent, well-balanced, thoughtful readers who not only know better, but are sensible and well-educated enough not be vulnerable to political guru worship and mindless following. That is why they argue for and we agree to defend the rights of those who are most willing to take away our rights, in a heart beat.<br /><br />They are not the same.beemodernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180046342466780318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-56139976029164867262010-04-07T05:17:57.807-05:002010-04-07T05:17:57.807-05:00jim, for you and janiece to attempt to distance yo...jim, for you and janiece to attempt to distance yourself from your voicing the suggestion of violence and disappearing your antagonist might make you think it's ok to give voice to such suggestions since, as your defense you say, essentially, 'who'd a thought it could be taken seriously' or 'far be it from me to actually do something that I suggest', but what you are doing is no different than those goading the unbalanced among the tea party, or the anti-abortionist extremists, who then, as we know all too well, go on to act on the suggestion of violence.<br /><br />Those who suggest violence, no matter their rationalization or justification are just as culpable as those who eventually act on those suggestions.<br /><br />It's not acceptable when the right wingers goad their base, and it's not acceptable when anyone else engages in the same.<br /><br />I agree Phelps and his followers deserve nothing but scorn and contempt. But dipping into their playbook can't be condoned nor can it be 'explained away'.<br /><br />It is and should be unacceptable from any quarter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-1449286177330750152010-04-07T02:07:14.061-05:002010-04-07T02:07:14.061-05:00Well said. Covered all the bases and then some.Well said. Covered all the bases and then some.Droverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04733976221063022013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-81524021965095690142010-04-06T23:45:24.196-05:002010-04-06T23:45:24.196-05:00Oooh-fucking-RAH!
There are few I've read, few...Oooh-fucking-RAH!<br />There are few I've read, few I've heard that have things as square and tight as that dissertation. <br />Nothing but net!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-82541514211069473062010-04-06T22:32:30.191-05:002010-04-06T22:32:30.191-05:00the lawyer for WBC is Shirely Phelps-Roper, Fred P...<i>the lawyer for WBC is Shirely Phelps-Roper, Fred Phelps' daughter. No matter how you slice it, as long as this ruling stands it's money in Fred's pocket.</i><br /><br />No, I did not know that. Which means...if there had not been a ruling on court costs to be paid, I'd bet the whole thing would have been pro bono for the WBC.WendyB_09https://www.blogger.com/profile/03788918629240949526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-58022841945999306482010-04-06T22:27:58.855-05:002010-04-06T22:27:58.855-05:00Nathan, as Janiece said, CACO.
I was a CACO here...Nathan, as Janiece said, CACO. <br /><br />I was a CACO here in Alaska (it's a collateral duty, performed in addition to your regular duties). <br /><br />I would say that as a CACO, or any active duty military (especially one in performance of official duties) you'd have to be very, very careful about such things as notifying the family of protests by WBC or any other private group - such assistance could very easily be interpreted as government/military interference with a citizen's 1st amendment rights. I would venture that legally all you could do would be to maybe suggest that the bereaved check the websites or the town office (for registered protests, etc).Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-59509186351941217912010-04-06T22:14:30.691-05:002010-04-06T22:14:30.691-05:00There is a difference between public and private f...There is a difference between public and private figures. There is a difference between public and private events. There is such a thing as the right to dignity and the right to protection from intrusion into fundamentally private moments and places.<br /><br />There are some occasions in the lifespan of humans that are one time moments for each individual, moments of great solemnity, and that cultures the world over recognize as such and therefore recognize with ritual. <br /><br />Births and private funerals fall into that category because they mark the beginning and the final end for each and every one of us. (I would add deaths to that list, even though many deaths are not ritualized in any way; they are still exceedingly painful and private for families.) Therefore, I do not think it is inappropriate to separate such occasions from all else we engage in. <br /><br />It doesn't matter if protesters are on a public street. Just because I wear a skirt, it doesn't mean I've given permission for someone to stick a camera under me. In that same vein, because a cemetery is next to a public street doesn't mean a family isn't entitled to some privacy. In this particular case, a father should not have to be thinking about how to avoid protesters as he faces his son's funeral. It is appropriate and fundamentally right to protect grieving citizens from intrusion and from civil/political protest and discourse. <br /><br />We should make public protests at all funerals illegal. That isn't discriminatory and it doesn't prevent free speech, not even hateful speech; it merely makes the most private moments off-limits. There are many other places and avenues for expression that can be used instead.beemodernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17180046342466780318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-56221855221178280672010-04-06T22:03:03.212-05:002010-04-06T22:03:03.212-05:00Nathan, if the service member is on active duty wh...Nathan, if the service member is on active duty when they pass, the military will assign a CACO (Casualty Assistance Calls Officer) to arrange the service and help the family with the details associated with the military aspects of the death. I don't know if checking the WBC website is part of their process at this point, but I would think it would be the smart thing to do.<br /><br />There's an excellent book on this topic called <em>Final Salute,</em> which I reviewed <a href="http://www.hotchicksdigsmartmen.com/2010/01/if-you-read-only-one-thing-this-year.html" rel="nofollow">here,</a> if you're interested.Janiecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190655869710465713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-64818216922940599652010-04-06T21:31:18.765-05:002010-04-06T21:31:18.765-05:00Just wondering (and this is something Jim might kn...Just wondering (and this is something Jim might know or be able to find out),<br /><br />It's my understanding that there's an officer assigned as liaison to families through the funeral (I'm not sure what their official title is). Do they check WBC's website and notify the family if a protest is expected? I understand that doing this wouldn't be publicized, since the military wouldn't want to give more credibility to WBC, but it seems a sensible step to take.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.com