From NewsBusters, here's a little something that should bring a smile:
On Monday, the Christian Science Monitor bucked its mainstream peers by reporting something truthful about the TEA party movement: police officials have begun to relax security requirements at conservative rallies because of the remarkable absence of violence.
Uh-oh! Well that sure kills the narrative! (I love the 'remarkable' part - perhaps if they had actually attended a tea party, they might not be so surprised).
Did the Christian Science Monitor not get the talking points on the Tea Parties? No doubt the White House will be in touch if the story gets legs. Please note the report came out Monday, and here it is, Friday, and it's barely
getting noticed. The article is about how unfair it is that the Tea Partyers are allowed to carry full sized flag poles, signs on wooden sticks and even guns to their rallies, but the left-wing's anti-war protests, for example, are not.
Hmmmm....I wonder why.....There is even a 2005 blog post from the Democratic Underground about why the blogger hates liberal protests. It's refreshing to hear a liberal complain about getting blamed for some fringe idiot's sign, and how the media are inevitably drawn to it. Although this seems to have been meant more as a "don't change the subject" complaint, not a "whoa, don't you think 'kill Bush' is a little too radical" issue. Glenn Beck has a great rundown of the difference between conservative and liberal rallies.
It seems that at a liberal protest, the police are more likely to be spat upon, whereas at a tea party, they are more likely to be thanked for their service.
Liberal protests seem like an excuse to a certain faction who attend to destroy and denigrate. Perhaps because the protesters of the 1960's made it okay to be arrested for protesting - it was patriotic, after all. Not to mention non-violent. The kids of today are told by their liberal professors that being arrested at a protest is a badge of honor. And so, the callowness of youth being what it is, destruction is sure to follow.
The big difference these days is that back in the '60's they were arrested for holding peaceful sit-ins, which brought things to a halt in a non-violent way. Nowadays, they are getting arrested for smashing windows, burning cars (often at climate rallies - 'cause nothing says caring for the environment like torching a car.) and attacking police.
Ultimately what it comes down to is that the grown-ups know who and what the real opponent is and understand that more is accomplished by being passionately peaceful than forceful and violent. Meanwhile, the callow youth are showing how thoughtless, shortsighted and violent rhey are.
It's too bad they've never learned what respect and integrity are. Perhaps if they had, the police wouldn't have taken their sticks away.