Gov. Douglas gets just desserts
I can’t believe any of my fellow bloggers didn’t come up with the above obvious headline. Cue the eye-rolling and the sound of the smacking forehead.
I unfortunately didn’t see this happen, as I was busy prostituting my musical services at the time for something I’d rather forget, but someone finally gave Governor Douglas a pie in the face at the Montpelier Independence Day parade. It was Santa Claus, giving us all a nice early Christmas present. It was a whipped-cream pie. Only thing that sucks is it shoulda been a maple cream cowshit pie.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hey, I used that headline in writing about it over at my site. The TA article today is insane, with people saying the pastry perpetrator would have “gotten killed” if this happened in a place like DC. I’ve yet to see any journalists contact the pieman himself for comment though. That’s quality journalism.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
In Holland a pie was thrown at politician Pim Fortuyn, a few months later he was killed in the streets. Not by the pieman (who was a woman, btw), and not because a pie was thrown at him first. There was no direct link between the two events. Still I don’t like people throwing pies at politicians, right-wing or left-wing. I think the autonomy of the human body should be respected. So no, I don’t think it should have been a cowshit pie or anything like it. (I think the pie thrown at Fortuyn was a cowshit pie).
July 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think the autonomy of the human body should be respected. So no, I don’t think it should have been a cowshit pie or anything like it.
I remember the Pim Fortuyn incident. I don’t really mean it about the cowshit pie, just me being a smartass. But I don’t have problem with pie-throwing, as long as nobody is actually physically harmed. A big allure of it is it breaks down the facade of a politician’s popularity in a sense, something that is relevant to the current situation with our governor.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I know you were being a smartass, but I still don’t agree with you. This weekend molotov-cocktails were thrown at the Gay Parade in Budapest. I know cocktails are more harmful than pies, but this may lead to the discussion what pies are still acceptable and what cocktails no longer are. Reason ends where violation of the human body begins. I even understood Cruise when he became angry when somebody sprinkled him with tap water.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“Reason ends where violation of the human body begins”
I mostly agree, but if someone is using their body to suggest or direct harm on others, they forfeit that right, in my opinion. As humanists, of course it should be our interest in seeing that no one is unduly harmed (um, hence the idea of being “for humans”); simultaneously, the violent aspects of the State are not going to be over-come (defended against) without a similar response. ”If I’m attacked and in danger, I will defend myself”. There’s a lot of grey area to explore, but certainly a case to be made about the inherent violence of capitalism and the State.
As for “what pies are acceptable and what cocktails are not” I don’t think it’s too hard: pies with knifes or other seriously harmful ingredients are at the least questionable; cocktails that fuck up anyone but the drinker are likewise.
Again, this all ignores conversations about the inherent violence of the State and capitalism itself (a real, physical threat to all of us), since that is probably beyond the scope of this conversation.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:53 am
There was also the incident involving Matt Taibbi and a colleague from The eXile. They made a pie made filled with horse semen and threw it in the face of Mike Wines, who was the NYT Moscow bureau chief at the time. They got away with it. Legend has it, Wines suffered from some kind of depression and was reshuffled to some beat reporter back in the states. Hows that?
July 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
If I got a face full of horse jizz, I’d be depressed as hell, too.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
If I’m attacked, I defend myself, sure, and I’m fully aware of the inherent violence of capitalism (and other isms) and the State. But these things are beyond the scope of this discussion, like wdh3 has said (btw: nice site you have). I was talking about the right of both homosexuals and right-wing politicians to have a parade (or take part in it) without being physically atacked. I know there’s a grey area. But let me put it this way: I have participated in several public discussions on Islam. My one and only condition (to the muslims who hosted these public discussions) was that my physical autonomy be respected. They were free to insult me, or to pray Allah to send me to hell – no problem at all. But if somebody is physically attacked during a public discussion, public discussions are no longer possible. That’s what I mean when I say that reason ends where violation of the human body begins.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, scherp. Two things (and I’m not insinuating/implying anything on the first one, just curious)….
Other than self-defense, are there any other instances where you find violence acceptable?
Tell me more about this Islam discussion you participated in. Was this something recent? You and I have discussed the Islamic immigrant conflicts in Europe a few times, is it just as prevalent in Belgium as it seems to be in the UK?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
In a democracy the State has the prerogative on violence. Problems begin when the State is no longer trusted or accepted by its subjects. In case of a revolution, things are clear – at least to those who started (or support) it. There’s a grey area for those who don’t want to start (or support) a revolution, but still don’t trust or accept the State (the authorities, the Powers that be etc.). I have the idea that this is the case for wdh3 (and many other Americans). Difficult. I don’t have all the answers. I guess this comes down to one’s personal ethics. I’m not a pacifist, by the way.
I’ll talk about Islam in another post.