« Word of the Day | Main | Fun with Photos »

the left redefines the word "victim"

I've seen some ridiculous defenses of the union guys who beat on Matt Margolis and his brother, but this one gets filed under "Are you fucking kidding me?" bq. You have this little smart ass college kid with too much time and money on his hands, all dewy-eyed because his hero, the Great Deceiver in Chief is in town and he gets in the face of burly blue collar worker who is struggling to meet his mortgage because of Bush's economic policies. What did they expect? That the union guy was going to thank this spoiled brat, whose parents are probably still paying his bills, for his input? And further down: bq. Margolis, enjoying the privilege of an expensive college education, verbally pushed this guy first. The union guy probably didn't get the same advantage, so he fought back with what he had, his fists - and Margolis is, or should have been, smart enough to know that he was likely to do so. From those two paragraphs alone we can infer two things: That this mental midget thinks educated white deserve to be pummeled just for the hell of it; that union guys are dumb and uneducated and therefore can only respond to being "verbally pushed" with their fists. Then there's the guy who responded on Matt's blog with this comment: bq. Hitler had his beliefs, just like Matt has his. Sometimes violence is the only way to show people how devastatingly bad their ideas are. When society is so distraught about policy that individuals feel the need to take violent action, revolution is not only expected, but neccessary. I'm no union man, but I'd have probably taken a swing at you too. What's really frightening is how many people blame Matt for this incident and never take the union guy to task for resorting to violence. Actually, I shouldn't be surprised. The left is all about blaming the victim and comforting the aggressor.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the left redefines the word "victim":

» Weekend Levity from damnum absque injuria
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!... [Read More]

» Starship from Inoperable Terran
Misha thinks those of us who expect the American left to be bad-smelling but mostly harmless are stupid. Michele offers corraborating evidence - it's now Matt Margolis' fault goonion thugs beat him up because he's white.... [Read More]

» All we are saying from Twisted Spinster
"War is not the answer. An eye for an eye makes the whole world-- Hey look, Republicans! Let's kick some ass!" And you know, considering the huge mass of denial that leftists (or whatever they are) seem to be operating under these days, I h... [Read More]

» Weekend Levity from damnum absque injuria
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! UPDATE: Ha.... [Read More]

» Steelworker, tigers, and bears, OH MY! from Classical Values
On a blog today I found an analogy which reminded me of yesterday's "post": [Union guys] got their goddam unions--by fighting people who tried to and often did kill anyone who wanted to form a union. Or has Mr Smith... [Read More]

» Is it OK to Start Getting Scared Now? from Game The World
Last Thursday, blogger Matt Margolis was assaulted at a demonstration outside of a Bush appearance in Boston. I'm not sure of the details, Matt has them on his site, and the actual occurrence of the assault is not what I want to write about. [Read More]


I hear the echoes from October 1917 in these ass-hat's voices more and more often these days...

This kind of thinking seems to me to be the logical consequence of what is being taught in universities. Speech is an "action," so why not react to one "action" (hearing something you don't like) with another action (violence). And people have a right not to be offended, so if you're offended, it's OK to use physical force against someone.

David -- Only if you're offended for an Officially Approved Reason, like conservatism, or the speaker being a college-educated white person, apparently.

The Left just makes themselves so easy to hate sometimes.

"And people have a right not to be offended, so if you're offended, it's OK to use physical force against someone."

Sad but too true.

Incidentally, I was (briefly -- as in walking home from work) at the same protest. I was completely disgusted by the 'Whoo Hoo! A protest! Par-TAY!' attitude of way too many of the so-called protestors. The REAL patriots who hailed from the Boston area must be spinning in their graves at what the idea of protest has become. I'm sure Thoreau is also rolling around in his grave, too, at how civil disobedience has been perverted.

Not that there was any civil disobedience going on, that I know of, mind you. I just have Thoreau on the brain at the moment. Don't mind me.

First off: Most union rank and file aren't bone-headed morons like the guy who jumped Matt. They work hard and pay their bills without pounding the snot out of anybody.

Second: If you want to talk about "the advantaged," take a look at Howard Dean and John Kerry, who respond to honest questions on the campaign trail by shouting back, "sit down and shut up" or, "Hey - mind your own business."

There seems to be a real atmosphere of poison on the left, and it's fair to ask if it's coming from the top.

Kinda funny to see the Left criticizing prosperous, unemployed college kids who go to protests and sticking up for people who work for a living. These tools are just immune to irony.

Echoes of 1917? More like 1930. We are, I fear, on the verge of re-awakening the beast. Anger and fear feed it, and as it is fed it's paranoia grows to irrational levels only to be manipulated by those who would use it to seize power. That is what we are seeing now. Howard Dean may have been considered a flake, but he tapped into a vein of rage that has not yet played itself out. Think about it folks, when the activist Democrats and hard leftists talk amongst themselves (as DU has shown us) we are no longer their opponents, we're their enemies. That's what we are boys and girls, enemies, no room for polite disagreement or opposing viewpoints, nope. anyone who doesn't conform is now their enemy. The mind set is in place, next come the pogroms...is that gasoline I smell?

One isolated incident in Boston and a few idiotic posts on a couple websites and people start to worry like this is Germany in the 1930's. Yes, a few on the right and left have brown shirt tendancies, that isn't news to any of us. Robert Modean needs to read Margolis' website, Matt actually believe those who disagree do not have different opinions but are either stupid or treasonous or both. Notice his category "Liberal Idiots" or his favorite post: "the french-o-cRATS". Margolis is certainly guilty of labeling his opponents as enemies.

I found his little photo slide show pretty unamusing. In it he refers to people as "evil" "dumb ass" "commie trash" "dyke" yes he used dyke "thugs" "mindless" "fools" "pillow biter" "bench rat". No one deserves to get assulted but if he used those words prior to the attack he is certainly guilty of provcation.

Andrew R.,

Have you ever seen INTERNATIONAL ANSWER in person? They need to learn how to bathe. Calling them "Commie Trash" is actually a compliment.

It is a staple of common law throughout the history of our country, and as well as throughtout our jurisprudential inheritance from England, that MERE WORDS ARE NOT ADEQUATE PROVOCATION. Ever.

But if you didn't know the law, and if you're a left wing apologize for communist thugs, you wouldn't know that.

In a legal sense you are correct, Sydney. I've know a little about tort and criminal law and know that words are never adequate provaction. I am NOT apologizing for any violence. Violence is wrong wrong wrong wrong. I doubt Margolis was just minding his own business, since he isn't above using two extremely homophobic comments (dyke and pillow biter) when describing his opponents.

And, No, I haven't seen international ANSWER in person but, they are, from what i've read, a seriously fucked up bunch of people. David Corn did a very good piece on them a while back read it.

What angers me is how the left seems to have completely slipped into a parallel universe. Even "mainstream" left-wing politicians like Al Gore now spend speeches screaming at their audience like deranged howler monkeys about how George Bush "betrayed this country." It's not about disagreements over policy, it's about HATE.

They hate Bush. I mean, here's a guy who's signed all sorts of questionable democrat-sponsored legislation, created new entitlements with a stroke of his pen, and has in general went out of his way to work with the other side, and they STILL hate him. Hell, Terry McAuliffe has Bush's face on his frikkin' doormat. It's like the democratic party has regressed to the maturity of middle schoolers.

I've got friends who act this way... they KNOW they aren't voting for Bush, but they can't give me a reason why they're voting for Kerry, except "he's not Bush." That doesn't win elections; it didn't work for the republicans in 1996, and it won't work for the democrats in this election. If they keep it up it could fracture the party. Now, as a republican, part of me wouldn't mind that, but in truth, we need TWO (or more) strong parties. I wouldn't want the republicans to have a monopoly on power any more that I want the democrats.

And for those stupid, immature DU-types who want revolution, they should pray they never get it. The left needs to remember which side hasmost of the guns, which areas grow the food in this country (hint: they're mostly the red states on the elction map), and which side the military generally supports. Trust me, guys, you DON'T want to start something with a bunch of heavily armed right-wingers.

I responded to the first person you quoted.

It was obviously Matt's fault. He insisted on using words of more than four letters. The thug could not understand them and it lowered his self-esteem. When talking to union goons, one should always use short, easy to understand words.

Lowered self-esteem leads to violent behavior.

So Andrew,

One isolated incident? Really. You've been keeping count? If so you might want to try a little harder. It's de rigeur for the leftists to attack Bush supporters now days, has been for the last year or so. Last October several people (including a pregnant woman) were harassed, threatened, and assaulted by anti-war protestors. Back in December Dean supporters assaulted Bush supporters who showed up at a Dean speech holding protest signs. For the "crime" of standing silently holding a sign they were spit on, punched, and kicked. In August recall supporters were attacked by - yes again! - Union thugs wearing "NO on RECALL" T-shirts. Seems the Union muscle didn't like the protestors objecting to California Tax Payer's funding the Anti-Recall workshops and chose to exhibit their displeasure by kicking, beating, and punching the Recall protestors. In NYC about the same time as the Margolis incident pro-Bush supporters were attacked by anti-war protesters and had to be rescued by the NYPD. Think its still an isolated incident? Yep. It's definintely gasoline I smell...

I'd be curious as to how many of the pricks saying this shit against Matt and Aaron also happen to be ANTI-WAR.

Apparently, violence and war are two different things, and violence is only justified when it's against someone who disagrees with you.

How ironic!!!

This is less a matter of left and right than of the fringes. I don't believe the vast majority of people on the right OR the left would ever condone beating someone up because they disagree with you at a rally. Even at the height of the Vietnam war you didn't see a ton of instances. To me, it's clear cut: if someone takes a punch at someone or hurts them at a rally or anywhere else for that matter and it is not a matter of physical self-defense then the person who did the violence goes to jail. Period. What IS shocking, as Michele notes, is that there are folks who condone this violence...unless, of course, it is someone on their side who gets beat up, then they're running to the police. They have ZERO TOLERANCE on bullying in most schools now; we should have ZERO TOLERANCE on violence when it comes to political debate. All that the liberal writer did in that column was turn off someone like me who isn't in any camp. JAIL TIME is the solution...no matter WHO does the violence.

Margolis, enjoying the privilege of an expensive college education, verbally pushed this guy first. The union guy probably didn't get the same advantage, so he fought back with what he had, his fists - and Margolis is, or should have been, smart enough to know that he was likely to do so.

Wow, if this author is willing to give a high-school educated (presumably) union worker permission to strike a college educated white boy in order to level the playing field, imagine the handicap they'd be willing to give someone who only has the equivalent of a third grade education, say your typical Middle Easterner?

I know that the 9/11 crew were mostly college educated, but they were fanatically religious. Obviously, you have to make some sort of allowance for that type of shortcoming.

Someone's also forgetting that union workers -- especially from Local 7 Ironworkers, like the thug in question -- is not "disadvantaged" or "impoverished." He's got a guaranteed job, guaranteed benefits and guaranteed wages. Dollars to doughnuts he's wealthier than Margolis.

I like this Margolis quote from his Blog for Bush. Matt and I quote "felt robbed of the experience of really pounding a union worker." (2:07 am comment).

Robert we can all name several incidents of violence perpetrated by some on the right and the left. Big deal, they are isolated.

There was an event in Iowa where some college republicans used force to crash a Joan Jett/Janeane Garefalo Howard Dean event at Drake Univesity. Another incident involved a death threat against anti-war protestors which was called into the Bellingham Washington 911 dispatch office. One incident I'm sure we all remember was the death threat Misha made against an guy who made a flash movie, granted the movie was in poor taste, but violence is never acceptable.

I'm sure I could dig up more like this but these are off the top of my head. If you think over the top rehtoric and the occasional fit of violence only exists on the left, well than you aren't paying attention.

"Violence is the sign-language of the inarticulate." Carridine

Yeah, yeah... Zippy the Pinhead hears Margolis calling him, suggesting dialogue instead of diarrhea, and Wham! (Sorry, Ossifer, I couldn't control myself...)

Me? I give labor (even unionized labor) the benefit of the doubt... except, d'accords, when they leap down and pummel other folks.

Here in Mexico violence has been used by the left a lot more than by the non-left ("right" is a forbidden word down here). The leftist party has never being able to go past the third place in general elections, in great part because people know how violent those leftist thugs are. They say they try hardly to fight that "wrong impression"...and the next thing you know, they are being violent some place or another, with any excuse for their sickly hate of all of the rest of us. They are really sick, sick in their mind and their soul, with so much hatred inside.

Joe G, I don't believe in the "it's only in the fringes" argument any longer. There are two ways to look at the bad behavior at anti-war protests:
1) There are a small amount of people who are emotionally moved to be this committed to the protests. This invalidates claims of "millions of marchers" and such that protesters have been making.
2) There are a large amount of people so moved, and therefore the "fringe" is a majority.

Which is it?

If you had an uppity little brat of a Republican (the very people who designed the society which makes you dirt poor and them filthy rich) in your face slandering you and those like you... wouldn't you give the little twit a working over? I'm sorry but I know I would.

I've been a debate team member from the time I was old enough to step up to a podium but there are just times when words do nothing. No matter what you say the person is going to shrug it off (assuming that you are intelectually inferior of course) and continue to verbally beat you.

I say cudos to the union guy, there are far too many self centred republican brats out there who do not care to understand the underlying implications of the policies which they so fervently tout. Uhh poor people = crime? Who knew? Guns = death? oh my!

I love how you americans conveniently forget that you have sponsored countless brutal and viscious right-wing dictators. Of course the peasant farmers who become rebels are absolute evil, not the uncle-sam friendly dictators who slaughter and torture thousands.

Come on people, you wonder why the world hates you and you never pull your head out of your asses long enough to see the wider picture. Selective reading of history only makes you look (to use your favourite word) Ignorant.

Go ahead and bash me, but at least read some Noam Chomsky or even The Guardian from time to time.

Be as right wing as you please, just dont expect the rest of the world to trundle along merrily any more. Need proof? Leave the country and start counting the number of times a lugi catches you upside the head.

God help you, we're sure as hell not going to.

Nationality: can't say, you might invade.

Nate, you had me at Noam Chomsky.

If you had an uppity little brat of a Republican (the very people who designed the society which makes you dirt poor and them filthy rich) in your face slandering you and those like you... wouldn't you give the little twit a working over? I'm sorry but I know I would.

So, you're a thug. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ah, and yet another apologist for thuggery tries the "verbal" violence excuse for assault and battery. How quaint.