| Sunday, December 17, 2006 |
21:00 - See what you wanna see
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23695_Bonaduce_vs._Idiot#comments
|
(top)  |
I don't know why everybody at LGF thinks that this video represents a "smackdown" by Danny Bonaduce of this John Connor character over the 9/11 conspiracy theory. While applauding his gallantry in apologizing in advance to the lady next to him for the language he's about to use, and his forthrightness in cussing out the guy for accosting him during his meal with his inane on-camera interrogation, they seem to be mystified that the "Resistance Manifesto" site he fronts is proud to display this video.
Well, it's no mystery. To them, it's proof positive that anyone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job is a foul-mouthed, confrontational imbecile who will swear at you and threaten you and demand obeisance for those in power rather than reading proffered books purveying "alternative" information. This video might be cathartic to someone wishing to see one of the conspiracy types verbally abused by proxy; but unfortunately it wasn't done with any finality or rhetorical skill. The closest it came to making a point was over the nature of the First Amendment, and on those grounds it was only really trudging through the mud of a fake-out side issue.
Granted, Bonaduce wasn't likely to have a litany of facts in front of him with which to refute the list of names Connor threw at him; certainly I'd never heard of them before. And he couldn't have been expected to have his arguments marshaled before him for easy deployment; he was just sitting there eating lunch, and Connor was specifically out to interview people using questions and barbs he'd been rehearsing all day.
But if I were confronted in a situation like this, the one thing I'd have to fall back on is asking the guy whether he can recite the First Amendment from memory, and whether he can explain how it applies to the situation at hand.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Neither of us being Congress, then, the "free speech" argument does not apply. Now let's discuss "missile pods" and "pancake effects" and "conservation of momentum" and other such obscure minutiae. Let's go.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
