Spot the Idiot 2

Let me tell you of my recent experiences in an “occupied territory.”

Spoiler: He's going to tell you about his experience as an anti-inaugural protester in Washington, D.C. Doh! I can't believe I gave it away. Trouble is, there are as-yet-undiscovered Stone Age tribes in the Amazon who already can see where this is going.

I had the opportunity to travel with a group of people who were visiting the area of that country to show support for the underprivileged located there. That country was deeply divided between "haves" and "have nots;" those who control the money, influence and military power, and those who represent the marginalized, oppressed and disenfranchised.

Interesting! We're not divided into "haves" and "have-nots" anymore. We're divided into "haves" and "those who represent." Those who represent a whole gaggle of us who the self-appointed representatives think ought to be falling in line behind them, but we're too uneducated to do so. As the recent election map shows, a lot of us are marching to different drummers. So, he seems to say, the have-nots are irrelevant. It's the representatives that matter.

Religion has been used by those in power to stigmatize, segregate, and dehumanize those people of contrary beliefs.

You mean like stigmatizing supporters of current American foreign policies as dupes of a cabal of megalomaniacal Jews and fanatical born-agains? Oh, wait, that kind of stigmatizing now is called "Speaking Truth to Power."

Fear has been used most successfully to promote policy, especially to expand militarism and control dissension.

You mean like fear that an aberrant strain in a great religion would exploit U.S. domestic openness to mount vicious attacks killing thousands of innocent people? Oh, wait, that really happened.

The group I accompanied joined, in essence, a refugee camp, which was set up to isolate dissenters. They were protesting to claim the same rights to occupy and govern the land as those in power. The "non-privileged" were excluded from other "public" areas by their inability to obtain (i.e., by paying) the special pass accorded to the power elite.

Plenty of people attended the inaugural events, from ballrooms to parade route grandstands to seats at the swearing-in itself, without paying a cent. I know some of them. I bet they have less pocket cash than the person who wrote this letter.

On the other hand, the writer seems to confuse "expression" with "disruption." You have a right to protest a public event. You don't have a right to hijack it. How far do you think your right extends? Do you claim the right to block the parade route? To crash the inaugural balls and throw buckets of blood on people? To jump up on stage and take the microphone from the president and start reading Ward Churchill's essay?

Then what degree of rights do people have who want to protest you?

The camp had no toilet facilities, no trash receptacles, no heated enclosures (outside temperatures were below freezing). All entering were searched, restricted items were removed, and some were detained as “suspicious,” all under the justification of “security against terrorism.”

That sucks. Sounds like somebody didn't plan that too well. But I didn't realize it was the government's job to provide free toilets.

The refugee camp was, of course, completely surrounded by the armed military; snipers watched from the rooftops. Because, you see, this occupied area was located in a city – in fact, the capital city of the country.

Yep. About 6,000 cops and 2,500 soldiers and bomb-sniffing dogs. Tightest security in the history of the event. Really depressing, when you think about it. Now, what was the main thing that happened between 2000 and 2004 that might account for that? And who did it?

And what makes you think they were all there to watch you? The military presence surrounded the inaugural event, too; the place you complain you weren't allowed to go. In fact, I imagine there were more snipers around the president than there were watching your protester tot lot. So what's your point?

And it so happened that on the day of my visit, the ruling power was throwing a lavish celebration for its supporters and benefactors – those who filled its coffers in return for selectively beneficial policies. The people in the camp were a diverse group, but were common in the characteristic that they were not benefactors of those policies.

No, they were wanna-be benefactors of other policies, which were advocated by the party that did not make its case well enough to win the election and thus establish itself as the "ruling power." And you are upset about this. In rhetorical circles, this is called "sour grapes."

Additionally (and remarkably) they were also citizens of this virtual police state. However, exercising their right to dissent branded them as “unpatriotic,” “enemies” and “traitors.”

Somebody questioned your patriotism! That ought to be illegal! Fact is, some of us do have doubts about it. We want to be able to distinguish honest dissent from "working for the other side." And what you say and do helps us determine which you are.

As George Orwell put it ["Notes on Nationalism," May 1945],

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ...."

You want to be a contrarian, very well. Hope that works out for you. Or do you simply want to be an anti-American? Don't expect me not to care about the difference. We respect some people who are harshly critical of many things about the U.S. But a lot of us feel, with Rabindranath Tagore, that "He alone may chastise who loves." José María Aznar can tell us things, and expect us to listen, that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero can't.

We're looking for a little honest appreciation of America, and the kind of criticism meant to make it better here for all of us, not just tear down the nation, or give total power to a set of commissars chosen by you and your friends. Just like your side (the sane ones, anyhow) regard us with suspicion and want to make sure we're not just mindless militarists or greedheads. The more we show you, the better you can judge, if you choose to. We owe it to you to give you enough of ourselves that a reasonable person can discern honest patriots from scoundrels.

As a result, there were unfortunate reports of some of the peaceful protesters receiving unwarranted physical assault from the surrounding “security forces.” The crowd cried, “We’re citizens, too!” which fell on deaf ears.

According to the news reports, the tally was two wounded police officers (cuts and bruises) and "at least 10 arrests." No reports of protesters seeking hospital treatment that I've seen. One of the arrested was a man who broke through security four years ago to shake Bush's hand at his first inaugural. Police got him on the old trespassing warrant.

At one point, some protesters hurled stones onto the parade route. None of them got arrested. Police just closed that one entrance. Sounds like remarkable restraint for a "police state." Even the guy who booed Bush during his inaugural speech at the Capitol and yelled, "Where are the poor? Did you ship them out of town?" got escorted out, but I'm not aware that he got arrested.

Where were the poor, come to think of it? How come they didn't turn out en masse to back up their self-appointed representatives?

As an American, it was extraordinarily eye-opening to witness these restrictions of freedom first-hand. It made me long for the freedoms established as “inalienable” by the U.S. founders.

Well, now let's discover what those "inalienable" freedoms are. I'll need some help with this one. The word "inalienable" isn't in the Constitution, which would be the place to discover what freedoms Americans had or didn't have. It isn't in the Declaration of Independence, either, unless you mean "unalienable," which is Jefferson's word, but with reference to natural rights, not civic freedoms.

Those rights are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What exactly were you deprived of that fell under this list? The right to have the government buy you a toilet? [I think Jefferson had that in there, but Franklin and Adams made him take it out.] The right to throw stones at the president? The right to force Washington socialites to stand downwind of your Mall kiosk patchouli?

If only that occupied country, I thought, could kindle those same rights. Then I realized that the occupied territory was actually my country; this was my capital city, Washington, D.C.; this was inauguration day.

That must have been when the weed wore off. Bummer.

Contrary to what we were told to believe, this was not a celebration of “freedom and liberty.”

Thank you for sharing. Next?