On Volume and questioning whether the "Looney Left" is any different than the "Radical Right"

One recent post in the SD Blogosphere that caught my attention was a copy of an article that Steve Sibson had related from Jill Stanek (whom I had never heard of until then) about SDDP board member Cecelia Fire Thunder and her desire to establish an abortion clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

To say the least, the article used some of the worst xenophobic language in reference to Native Americans I've seen used in print in the last decade. "Chief," "Scalping," and a vague reference to smoke that one can only assume the worst from. I'm surprised it refrained from referring to any anyone as a squaw.

After Sibby pointed out the article, Trent from over at Proud Liberal gave him hell for it. And it may have been deserved, or it may have not been. It wasn't Steve's article in the first place, but he did reprint it.

But flipping the coin to the other side, I'm noticing one of the most recent posts from coat hangers at dawn and it's characterization of the attitudes of religious conservatives:
Our Guest Speaker For The Right, Lydia Underwood

Due to some complaints that we are not offering up enough opportunities for the right to speak here, we have brought on board Mrs. Lydia Underwood to be our weekly guest commentator for the right. The comments of Mrs. Underwood are completely her own and do not imply any agreement or endorsement by our blog of her views in any way shape or form. Don't blame us, were only being fair and balanced.

Why Abortion Should Be Banned

By Lydia Underwood

I don't know why these anti-family lie-bural lesbians have such an issue with abortion. Frankly, we need more babies here in God's country. Where are all the future Wal-mart workers going to come from? Without cheap labor who will wait on me at Cracker Barrel on Sunday morning after church, or at the Royal Fork on Fridays?

Abortion removes 800 potential sources of cheap labor right here in South Dakota every year. Abortion is the very reason illegal aliens are taking over our beautiful country, we should be supplying our own exploitable labor force right here using God fearing believers! Who's going to fight our wars against the evil muslims for us? We certainly can't export THAT to India, none of those darn muslims would understand some funny talkin guy from India when he told them to surrender. Those non-believers can't win a war anyway, that is the domain of God's chosen warriors.


Well I have to go, Ezechiel keeps beating the cat with my "His Essence" candle instead of doing his home schooling lessons and Elijah is pouring bleach into the back of the TV. Til next week, praise Jesus!
Since it's been established that we all agree that xenophobia has no place in debating the issues, I'm waiting for those on the left to police themselves. I'm waiting for the equal outrage over the anti-religious bigotry that coat hangers is using to make her point. Or is that asking too much?

Examples aside, Is it just me, or is the tone of debate changed for this election? We've gone from arguing positions based on merit to little more than hysteria. The tone has become really, really nasty and negative early on in the process. Legislative petitions are not due until next week and it seems that campaigns are already into full frontal assault mode.

In the long run, do I care about the negativity? Well, no. I care about the candidates I support.

For the most part, my guys and gals are in the majority and already in office. Negative campaigns and the negative tone of the debate will only sway the vast middle if left unchallenged. And I'm certain nothing will be left unchallenged.

What's the net effect? It drives down voter turnout. And what happens when voter turnout is low? Change does not occur and the status quo is, more often than not, maintained.

So, keep it up.

By the time November rolls around, there will only be a handful of voters going to the ballot booths. They're going to vote NO on every ballot measure in front of them, and advertising be damned, they're going to vote for the people they've already voted for, or absent that, they're going to vote for the people who name they remember as having knocked on their door.

That's what I'm going to focus on.


Anonymous said…
I don't get how that's anti-religious.
Anonymous said…
Okay, I'm the first anon again. Read that first paragraph. I have heard with my own ears Republican legislators in Sioux Falls use that very reasoning to defend their anti-abortion position. This is not anti-religious, it's anti-crazy-people.
Anonymous said…
If people just voted 'no' on everything on the ballot, I'd be overjoyed. Just say no...to everything!
Call it what you want but every single phrase in there was lifted from a "radical right" speaker, article or bloggers own words. Some fairly well known. Its not "anti-religious" it just points out the insanity and real opinions of some of the extreme religious right. We have been getting hate mail for weeks claiming we are not giving the extreme right a voice on the blog. So we did, in their own words cobbled together into one article. We have a number of stories, links etc. about Christian groups that are trying to separate themselves from the extremists or are coming out that they are not for these type of bans.

If we posted some of the things that some right extremists have emailed to us we would probably get shut down for obcenity.

Unfortunately when politics becomes intermixed with religious views as is happening with the debate over HB 1215 you will bring out the radical elements on both sides.

Lately it seems many in the SD blogosphere spend more time posting "slaps" on others in the community than they do posting on the issues themselves. And as you pointed out all the negativity serves to turn people off more than motivating and informing them which is what we should be doing.
Bob Newland said…
I'm trying to get this straight. Life begins at conception, and it's morally impermissible to prematurely end an innocent life, right?

Except to save the life of the mother? Why then? Who are we to choose which life is more valuable? Maybe God meant the mother to die.

But, according to some, it's okay to abort a fetus if its potential mother is a sodomized religious virgin, but, apparently, not a non-sodomized irreligious slut.

An abortion won't restore virginity or faith.
prairie populist said…
You are right on PP, this is offensive and anti-religious. Anyone who doesn't think so is obviously not religious. This is an example of the way the "radical left extremists" think. They don't care though, because they "know" they're correct, so no one else who thinks otherwise could be. Think about it, if we actually had an abortion ban that made exceptions for rape,incest, and health of the mother, and we still had an abortion clinic in SD, there would be no drop in abortions. Every woman who came in and wanted an abortion would make one of those claims. Should we trust Planned Parenthood to sacrifice their own cash cow to screen these women. The bill, HB 1215, allows for the use of the morning after pill for those truly the victims of a vicious crime. They take the pill and will never know if they were fertilized or not. A ban with exceptions would be no ban at all, but thats how you extremists want it, so why not be honest and say you want "abortion on demand through all nine months for any reason or none at all" since that's the way it is now.
Todd Epp said…
Is Lydia Underwood married to Jesus General?

Todd Epp
Marriage and Morality Editor
S.D. Watch http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
Anonymous said…
I'm not even sure Lydia Underwood is even a woman...
Steve Sibson said…
Political correctness versus the truth:

I am amazed at how the politically correct crowd has created am atmosphere where the truth can not be told without charges of racism.

I thought the Jill Stanek column provided us with documented (note the links) arguments that it is the left who are the racists.

And from comments left at Mount Blogmore and from conversations I have had with Native Americans, they do not support abortion on demand. That was the point that was also made by Stanek that caused me to put her column out there for others to consider. This I thought was thought provoking:

“Stupid is blaming the white man for annihilating a large portion of one's people while boxing up the rest and then inviting the white man into the box to annihilate more of one's people. “

I thank this web site for recognizing the column, but I am disturbed that it was done in a negative light due to the column’s violation of the left’s political correctness. Political correctness not only violates the First Amendment, it prevents us from bringing truth into the discussion. And that is the left’s goal.
Anonymous said…
Very good analysis Sibby, you are right on, I found the article to be very thought provoking,not racist.
Anonymous said…
That photo has got to be the "little accident" from "wire hanger" cause that's just what they all tend to look like. (most the time, anyway.)

Anonymous 3, You're just not with it. Vote YES on everything. It's the PC way to go.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long