Sunday, September 25, 2011

Attack Waaaaaatch!

I just reported this blog to Attack Watch (.com).

Come on, how could I resist?

I disagree with President Obama on, well, everything.

I'll even say it loud and clear so you can't misunderstand: Obama is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.

He is wrong on Israel. He is wrong on a Palestinian state. He is wrong on Libya, Egypt, and his comments on Iraq. His wife is wrong about healthy eating (and I don't believe for a second that she has much to do with her garden outside the occasional photo op, but that's just an opinion). He's wrong about the stimulus, sorry, "Job's Bill", shovel-ready-jobs, sorry, "jobs for construction workers", and our role in the world, sorry, "Place in the larger Global Community."

Have I said enough to be censured yet? Yeah, censured. I didn't misstype. What AttackWatch (.com) is, is a censorship site.

You see, nothing I've written is necessarily vicious. Or hateful. Or even inaccurate (though those are posts for a later day.) But those are exactly the kind of things that AttackWatch (.com) is made to pick up on then attack or claim are false. And the site is full of blatant accusations of lying, too. Not even the facade of "debatable" or "opinions" or even "misunderstanding", just straight accusations of various conservative, republicans, and even independents distorting the truth for the explicit purpose of damaging Obama's political career. (Not that he needs any help with that. Whoops, should I report myself for that as well?)

For all you boys and girls out there who think the Obama administration, or Obama for America, or, or whichever front group is behind this, is in the right to silence "attacks", let me explain a little thing about... Censorship.

Censoring, according to Merriam Webster, is: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.

Censorship is the institution or practice of censoring.

First off, what most Americans are exposed to as "Censorship" is modesty censorship: the black bars and blurry lines on certain cop shows, FCC regulations in regards to live tv (wardrobe malfunction anyone?) and those weird sound effects that do little to keep us from knowing exactly what an actor or singer was going to say. A lot of those are self-imposed. In order to appeal to broader demographics, shows and songs allow their work to be censored, or find clever ways of preserving modesty, so that families can enjoy them. As you all know, many artists still sell explicit versions of their music. And people can still buy R, NC-17, and yes, even X-rated films if they want. It's only censored in the public eye, and only at certain times. These things are still allowed to exist and people can still swear up a storm if they want to. (They also are allowed to deal with the consequences of that, but again, a post for a later day.)

What I'm talking about now is political censorship. This one's a lot nastier. Political censorship is a lot more pervasive for one. If you look at AttackWatch (.com), types of "Attacks" include: TV interviews, Public Statement, Forwarded Emails, Website/Blog, and... Rumors. Yup, even idle gossip should be reported. See what I mean about pervasive? Forget about "Government should stay out of the bedroom" this is government intrusion everywhere. If you hear a rumor in the restroom- report it. If your dad says something over dinner- report it. If you read an opinion online- report it. Nowhere is it safe to state your opinions. Nowhere can you feel free to express yourself.

That's assuming that AttackWatch (.com) is something to be taken seriously. Honestly, you don't get the title "Joke of the Internet" for nothing.

But if it did have power to persecute those "attacking" the president, what would we be able to say? Where's the line between an "attack" and an "opinion"? A "lie" and an "ideological difference"? And who's holding the president accountable if we can't disagree with him? Hmm? There's a reason why one of the very first guaranteed freedoms in the "Bill of Rights" is Freedom of Speech followed closely by Freedom of the Press.

Secondly, think about the precedence it sets. Seriously. For all you big Obama supporters out there, imagine that Sarah Palin was president (the horror!). Now imagine a site like AttackWatch (.com) was set up to track every statement, website, and rumor against her and flag it for investigation. Would you be comfortable with that? Or would you be screaming at the top of your lungs that you were being unfairly prosecuted for having an opinion. Would you be demanding that she be removed from office for her supporters violating your First Amendment rights?

I thought so. You can't even imagine that type of world without recoiling in horror at the, yes, censorship that would be happening.

So how can you possibly let it pass now?