Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: April 15, 2014 06:32PM
I just got a call from a very upset individual who said that I shouldn't be commenting about the hate crimes perpetrated in Overland Park, Kansas--the ones, of course, allegedly committed by Frazier Glenn Cross/Miller against three innocent people (a grandfather and his grandson--both Methodists who were attending an audition for the grandchild who was wanting to perform in a local musical production--and a Catholic woman who worked with visually-impaired children and who was visiting her mother at an assisted-living facility). All three of theses victims were, at the time of their shooting deaths, at Jewish community centers in Overland Park where Cross/Miller allegedly went on his murderous rampage in the name of God (reportedly using illegal firearms in the process, given that, as a convicted felon, he is a prohibited possessor).
The argument of the upset individual was that I should. instead, be reporting on what is "really happening" in Washington, D.C. to "the common people." (As if the 14-year-old boy and his grandfather, along with the woman victim, were somehow not "common people"). What the supposedly far-more important D.C. news was, the caller did not bother to say.
But for me to speak out against such hate crimes, I was told by the complainer, was "not funny." I responded that I did not regard the mass killings as "funny," either, and explained that editorial cartoons, as historically intended, carry political messages. I recommended that the complainer go to the comic pages if they were looking for "funny." The grumper's response was that they didn't think comics today were all that funny. So, I suggested they start drawing their own comics.
The upset caller declared that what I drew was simply my way of "spreading hatred." Huh? I replied that, as noted in the drawing, the person actually spreading the hate was the individual who apparently went out looking to murder Jews but ultimately ended up murdering three Christians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oops.
I further noted that this accused murderer was:
1) a rabid anti-Semite (who was into amassing stockpiles of arms and building paramilitary compounds in preparation to wage war against Jews);
2) an open. avowed supporter of Hitler (who, in fact, yelled out "Heil, Hitler!" from the backseat of the patrol car where he was cuffed); and
(3) a White supremacist (who, I should have added, was also a former Grand Dragon of the KKK).
In making my case that it was this alleged gunman who was the real hate-monger, I noted to the complainer that I had quoted (in the cartoon itself) the alleged murderer's anti-Jewish rants made in a letter to the editor he had written to an Illinois newspaper. (Except for lack of space, I could have extended the quote, which more fully read as follows: "The Jews are our main and most formidable enemies, brothers and sisters. They are truly the children of Satan, as Christ tells us in St. John 8:44. The Jews are destroying our Race thru-out the world. He who fights the Jew, fights the devil. He who refuses to fight will invoke the wrath of Yahwey").
The complainer replied that they (the complainer) just wanted this kind of political cartoon commentary "to stop." I replied that this kind of commentary crops up in America all the time, where open debate cannot simply be "stopped" by edict, given our individual constitutional right to free speech. I reminded the caller that suppression of individual speech occurs in countries like North Korea, to which the complainer replied, "This country is becoming North Korea." I answered that given the caller's positive attitude toward suppression of free speech, if they were in charge here, America would, indeed, be North Korea.
The complainer claimed that "half the people" who would see my commentary would agree with the complainer that it should be stopped. I asked the caller where they got their statistical data to make such a claim. The caller responded that they had talked to their friends. Well, then, that settles it.
The angry protester went on to accuse me of being "angry." I replied that the protester was the one who angry enough to call me in the first place to complain. The caller denied that they were angry, which led me to ask if their complaint to me simply represented a peaceful skip through the meadow. I acknowledged that, yes, I am justifiably angry that such an atrocious and unjust act has been committed against innocent people--and that I have every right to publicly say so. I noted that discussion about this horrible crime is actively and legitimately taking place across the country and that the accused will ultimately be subjected to a public trial to answer for the murders he is charged with having committed.
The caller ended their defense by claiming they were 70 years old. (For chrissakes, the accused murderer is 73. So much for rational thinking at an advanced age).
The whole exchange reminds me of Mormons who claim that to point out the hateful racist doctrine embedded to the hilt in the Book of Mormon makes those who dare point it out the haters.
Anyway, here's the cartoon that caused the caller's meltdown:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/steve-benson/2014/04/15/steve-benson-overland-park-kansas-shooter/7727543/_____
Another day in paradise.
Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2014 04:15AM by steve benson.