Pie in the Eye
Alright, I have to address something posted by my good buddy Wertz over at his blog, The Wertz Generation. Here is Wertz’ post:
You may be thinking, “OK, dude, just reply over at his blog.” Well, it’s not going to happen.
See, I like Wertz. He’s a great guy. We originally met online after he liked what he saw over at America’s Debate. He joined up and “got it” right away. He was one of the first two staffers ever on the site, the other one being the wonderful Cyan.
Wertz and I have met in person several times, and he has even enjoyed the hospitality that is my humble home. We have had several engaging debates live and in person, and Wertz knows that I will often take a very odd position to make a point.
I don’t intend for my comments to be seen as mean, rude, hateful, or disrespectful. Any perception of this by The Wertz Generation audience would be mistaken. I don’t want to cause trouble over at Wertz’ site (although I really don’t want to cause trouble over here either!). So, out of respect for Wertz, I am not going to post this at his blog.
So, let me cut my comment from Wertz’ reply form and paste it into mine:
You may have heard that Bill Kristol, neocon founder of the Project for the New American Century and one of the greatest enemies this country has ever had, got pied while addressing students at Earlham College the other night.
Kristol-1 Kristol-2 Kristol-3
This innocuous act of civil disobedience has apparently caused even more outrage than the attempted “assault” on Anne Coulter a few months ago, with calls for the expulsion of the students involved. Puh-lease. This was a joke - and the mildest possible response to someone like Kristol, who is lucky he wasn’t driven off campus by villagers brandishing pitchforks and torches (as he would be in any setting which harbored a handful of genuine patriots).
Best take on the incident is from Rising Hegemon. Hilarious!
Hypocrisy at its finest here!
Let’s look past the political prejudice and emotion and look at the State of Indiana’s laws, shall we? Bear in mind that I don’t agree with either of the assaulted parties.
(Impertinent parts edited out)
Battery
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor.IC 35-42-2-3
Provocation
Sec. 3. A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in conduct that is likely to provoke a reasonable man to commit battery commits provocation, a Class C infraction.
Yep, that sure seems to be battery and provocation to me, both misdemeanors.
Let’s look at the Ann Coulter situation, which occurred in Arizona. Arizona law reads:
(Impertinent parts edited out)
13-1203. Assault; classificationA. A person commits assault by:
3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.
OK, so it was a misdemeanor there, too. And, they were arrested.
So what is the lesson here? The law is the law unless The Wertz Generation disagrees.
Let’s extend this with a hypothetical. Let’s say that someone, for whatever reason, decided to throw a pie in the face of a speaker at a homosexual rights rally.
The Wertz Generation would be outraged. There would be calls for arrest, and if it happened at a university at the hand a student, there would surely be calls for suspension or expulsion.
Charges of “assault” would be cried from the treetops! The “law only applies when it favors me” crowd would be calling for prosecution under hate crime statutes– after all, the victim was gay.
And The Wertz Generation would applaud in hypocrisy.
March 31st, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I see this more as much ado about nothing. I heard about this in an amusing NPR piece that compared the pie-ing of Bill Kristol to the shooting of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Roosevelt and Kristol recomposed themselves and continued with the speech.
I feel little remorse fro Kristol for two reasons.
1. It was a pie and I believe no damage occured.
2. It has been great publicity for Kristol so as I see it the event has had a net postive effect a la the controversy generated by the decision not to release Michael Moore’s movie.
“What are in in for?”
“Grand theft auto, you?”
“Pie throwing.”
If Mr. Kristol was harmed, I apologize for misunderstanding this event. I do not condone the pie-throwing yahoo, but I hope that Mr. Kristol is getting this public attention as in the NPR story for his ability to shrug it off and move on in life.
March 31st, 2005 at 11:14 pm
Thanks for stopping by, Ray!
I really don’t know the facts of the event, nor do I claim to know them. I know more about Billy Crystal than I do Bill Kristal.
But I do know the definition of assault, as do most people I am sure. But when one puts “assault” in quotes as if it wasn’t really assault, it shows bias.
Just because the object used for the assault is funny or not necessarily physically harmful, and just because the victim is an adversary, does not make it an excuse to shrug it off as though it is a completely benign action not worth any punishment.
April 4th, 2005 at 6:52 am
The story is entertaining to some degree. However, it is another story among a long list of incidents where students at our colleges actively seek to restrict the free speech of anyone they disagree with.
I am no right-winger. Nor and I a left-winger. I have arms, I do not fly, I have no use for wings, I prefer reason.
Our colleges and universities were once THE home of free expression, where any idea or position, no matter how outrageous could be expressed. It could be debated, ridiculed, mocked, whatever, but any idea could be expressed. Especially when the speaker in question is an INVITED GUEST. It is a matter of decent, mature behavior.
Over recent years, this has changed. Anyone going to a campus these days, with a “politically Incorrect” opinion to express, should expect not to be heard over those “enlightened” students who will childishly shout down any speaker who dares to express a thought they disagree with.
So much for free expression. Whatever happened to having your assertions challenged?
What bothers me the most about these incidents is how little these students seem to understand the real effect of their actions. By not allowing these speakers to be heard then add no new members to their cause, and they energize the cause of the opposition. By not allowing these speakers to be heard they throw away the opportunity to debate the ideas that would have been expressed, and with that opportunity, so goes any chance to win over the fence-sitting majority.
The whole point of allowing those who’s ideas you oppose to speak is so that you can address what you see as the flaws in their position. By acting like reasonable adults, allowing others to express their views, regardless of how asinine, you show yourself to be mature and confident. You also give yourself the opportunity to directly address those issues now that they have been expressed.
Choosing to instead, shout down a speaker, pie a political opponent, or whatever else, shows you to be nothing better then a spoiled little child who would sooner stick your fingers in your ears and yell “I’m not listening, I’m not listening” then intelligently address the issues at hand.
If these students who are so insecure as to feel the need to restrict the speech of others or even assault their opposition (even in a light hearted way) rather then debate their opponents on the issues are an example of our future leadership then America is simply Doomed.
April 4th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Sorry - I just came across this, a bit late. You are very wrong about one key thing:
“Let’s extend this with a hypothetical. Let’s say that someone, for whatever reason, decided to throw a pie in the face of a speaker at a homosexual rights rally.
“The Wertz Generation would be outraged. There would be calls for arrest, and if it happened at a university at the hand a student, there would surely be calls for suspension or expulsion.
“Charges of ‘assault’ would be cried from the treetops! The ‘law only applies when it favors me’ crowd would be calling for prosecution under hate crime statutes– after all, the victim was gay.”
That’s just not the case. First, should someone be pied at a gay rights rally, my reaction would be no different. I may not be applauding the pie-wielder, but I certainly wouldn’t be calling for his/her arrest. Nor would I advocate that a student be expelled for such an act, even a Young Republican pie-ing Noam Chomsky. In either case, it would be an act of civil disobedience, a way of expressing disagreement or outrage without doing physical harm. I certainly wasn’t calling for blood when Luca Cassarini was pied or Willie Brown (and I don’t think anyone mourned when Bill Gates was pied) - though, as with any act of civil disobedience, the perpetrator should be prepared to face the consequences. In this case, if it’s an arrest for assault, so be it.
At the same time, my reaction would be considerably different if a student had rushed the stage and struck Kristol - or Chomsky - with a baseball bat.
Also (and I’m fairly certain I’ve mentioned this at AD), I am not now, nor have I ever been, an advocate of “hate crime” legislation. Granted, I do feel that the nature of some crimes should affect the judgement and sentencing in some cases. For example, someone spray-painting “Death to Jews” or “Kill Bush” on a public building should probably be judged differently than someone chalking “Bob loves Judy” on an abandoned warehouse, even though both are “acts of vandalism”. Similarly, someone pie-ing a speaker at a political forum should probably be judged differently than someone spraying seltzer on a comedian at a celebrity roast, even though both might technically be “assaults”. But that difference should be applied equally whether the “victim” is Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken - and they should be decided by judges or juries, not legislation.
Finally, in neither case mentioned here, was the speaker “silenced”. Ann Coulter was missed - though that didn’t stop her from characterizing it as “an act of terror”. And Kristol was pied near the end of his address and, after wiping himself off, continued with Q & A. Nor do I believe that “sliencing” the intent. Such acts are not done to engage in discourse or to enter into dialogue with the speaker on any level - they are done for the larger audience, for publicity, as means of expression. I’m sure there are many who would find the harmless public humiliation of Michael Moore or Terry McAuliffe or Molly Ivins or George Soros or Randi Rhodes or Eric Alterman extremely satisfying, even cathartic - as I did the pie-ing of Kristol. And, so long as no harm was done, I would defend the right of anyone to take any such public target down a peg or two.
I’m a bit disappointed that you would think I would make distinctions on the basis of the stance being ridiculed - and that you feel you couldn’t post this sort of comment in my journal.