Tuesday, January 07, 2020

No kidding …

… CNN, Soleimani, & Babylon Bee -- Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression | National Review. (Hat tip, Tim Davis.)

But if you only believe in approved expression, what else can you do?


  1. I have 5000 Facebook friends of all political and religious persuasions. I have yet to read anything saying that Soleimani wasn't a bad guy. Satire can be great, but it can also be "misread." A funny satirical article coming out of the left, proffers that since no one wants to line up for this new war or conflict, then the new conscription rule is to draft anyone who is fervently in favor of the war on social media (bringing proponents down 98% or some such statistic). My thought was that it did not go far enough. No one would draft an old geezer like me to fight, but the satire could include that, being so fervently in favor of war, I am willing to give up my younger progeny. Stuff like that. Don't argue with that satire yet. Just consider the tangent, as it goes into its pigeon hole to roost.

    Let me put a sensible argument against this satirical piece that the NR is examining. There's an idea put forward that some on the left consider Soleimani a "most revered military leader." That is true and good reporting, now that we have seen the reaction in Iran, the millions or hundreds of thousands mourning him as a martyr. Pompeo is wrong, there is no detectable movement or sense of liberation of the Iranian people coming from the killing.

    My FB feed shows that each and everyone on the left considers Soleimani to be bad for America, a killer like Mohammad bin Salman, for instance. This may be, because my 5000 friends of all persuasions tend to be well schooled and intelligent. Granted. The news coverage coming from the right is critiqued for not being more critical of what's going on, Democrat or Republican administration taking such a bold move. We should all be questioning this action -- is the sense of civic duty.

    No evidence has come forth, that both a move from Soleimani to kill Americans was imminent, and that the way to subvert this was to murder him. The left does not trust Trump. We know that. So why would they trust this decision, with no evidence. What has come out thus far, is that POTUS was given a list of a dozen or so actions that he could take, and he chose the assassination. This seems to throw out the idea that the consequences of his actions were considered in full.

  2. The Washington actually did call Soleimani a "revered military leader." Christiane Amanpour also said he was "beloved." Maybe he was. By some people.

  3. Also satire is, well, satire. Sometimes it hurts. Gotta learn to take it.

  4. My position is as an outsider, now of the Republicans, and also of the Democrats. Consider me a referee, today of the satire. Millions of Iranians consider Soleimani. Is there some fringy candidate for some office in 2020 who considers him beloved that I have not heard of? Hey maybe, but good like to that person getting liberal, conservative, or moderate backing. It's just a pigeon hole satire.

    Elizabeth Warren was on the View. The headline that drew my attention was, and here's the link: "Elizabeth Warren shuts down Meghan McCain in heated discussion on 'The View'. So I watched the back-and-forth between them, and Meghan McCain was not shut down. She respectfully asked Warren questions from the right, and Warren respectfully responded. My take was that McCain could pretty much be on board with the fact that, as Warren put it, Soleimani was a bad guy, but Trump's response was not a good one. And I wonder, what would John McCain have done? Not this.

    I invite anyone, not to be hurt by pigeons of satire flying in from the left or the right, and to stay out of those pigeon holes themselves, to appreciate the satire, but not follow the pigeons in, even when writing a headline for AOL News.