After action report on pancake breakfast
(John & Debbie Dingell by window with falling snow in background, the
former–on left–rebutting an Iraq heckler)
        Besides lots of Dems and high-calorie food showing up at the UM Dems pancake breakfast this morning, some high points included “your 15th District U.S. Representative” John Dingell answering/rebutting a heckler who asked what he was doing about Iraq. JD said that he was against the war from the start and is doing what he can, etc., which made the heckler sound like a bit of a screamer. (You can see heckler’s musings here at UM Dems blog Kicking Ass [donkey] Ann Arbor.)
        Also interesting to note was the flyer being passed out about the AHEAD (”Achieving Higher Education Access and Diversity”) Coalition’s effort to save affirmative action by proposing an amendment to the Higher Education Act, one which would utilize clause 4 of MCRI (i.e., MCRI doesn’t prohibit anything if that prohibition would result in loss of federal funding) in order to allow the return of affirmative action.
        This is a good idea, which I have been promoting for some while, see, e.g., my Michigan Liberal diary of November 14, 2006, Conyers/Dingell/friends should tie affirmative action to federal funding?. The national security issue might be a nice one to emphasize, by the way, i.e., affirmative action leads to a more diverse officer corps so that we can have a stronger military and beat the terrorists.
February 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I am not “the heckler” and I am certainly not a screamer, and my comments are on my blog here:
Letter to the youth of America.
Why don’t you actually read what I wrote and then respond to the substance of the argument, which is about funding the illegal aggressive war in Iraq?. Or is that not “arty” enough?
cheers,
Henry Edward Hardy
Scanlyze
February 18th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
(Comment cross-posted at Michigan Liberal.)
David, I shouldn’t have been surprised to learn via your link that Dingell’s heckler at the pancake breakfast was none other than Henry Hardy.
Favorite self-attributed quote from the illustrious–(just ask him, he’ll tell you)–Mr. H. during his self-serving tirade in front of Dingell?
“That’s right, your pancakes are drenched in the blood of the children of Iraq!”
And here I thought they were using regular syrup.
I was introduced to Hardy’s reasoned analysis and grasp of the relevant issues at last fall’s screening of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ at the Michigan Theater. Henry gave the audience a grandstanding warm-up even before the film began. During a trailer for the film ‘World Trade Center’, he loudly informed everyone that the film was a blatant propaganda piece meant to keep the American public in fear. (Given the make-up of the audience assembled there, this was probably not a huge news flash to them.) Hardy’s megaphonic declamations continued until the main feature began.
After the screening, the Michigan hosted an onstage panel made up of local environmentalists and a Democratic former political staffer. Hardy took to the microphone, demanding that the panel explain how the film could be considered objective and sincere since Al Gore’s late father had once held shares in Occidental Petroleum decades before, and insisted that it all smacked of a military-industrial conspiracy to him.
I know. His logic impressed me too.
The panelists more or less replied that they were there to answer questions related to the film’s message and the science behind it, not to address the minutae of the long-departed Gore Sr.’s stock portfolio history.
But that wasn’t enough for our Henry. He refused to yield the microphone, now being launched into full yelling mode. When attempts were made to escort him back to his seat, he accused the theater staff of censorship and fascist strong-arming. He probably would have included allegations of their involvement in the Kennedy assassination as well, had he been given sufficient time.
Hardy’s fringe-nut rant that day was not, regrettably, the only stupid question asked of the unfortunate panelists assembled for the benefit of the viewing audience. But it was the most self-righteous, disruptive, and tinfoil-hattish of the lot, hands down.
Some folks have odd hobbies.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Thanks Henry, I agree there could be less, or at some point no, funding for the Iraq war.
Whassup Rob!
February 18th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Rob interesting story you have embellished there. I didn’t say anything about Gore Sr. being an Occidental Petroleum shareholder, and I don’t in fact know if that is the case or not. Is it?
I did mention that Gore, Sr. had been made Vice President of Occidental Petroleum after leaving Congress, and that Occidental Petroleum CEO and Nixon associate Dr. Armand Hammer had been strong supporter of and mentor to both Gores.
I never used the term “military-industrial conspiracy” or said anything of the sort; that, Sir, is a falsehood and I will thank you to retract it.
I didn’t “take” the microphone; I waited in line until I was called on by the MC, Phyllis Englebert.
I did not say anything to or about any theatre staff.
There were no “attempts to escort him back to his seat”. A lady from the audience (who later apologized) tried to grab the mic from me as I was speaking; is that what you are referring to?
Phyllis called me later to apologize for not stepping in to defend my right to ask a controversial, but pertinent, question.
See: Letter to the youth of America
Do several convenient half-truths make “An Inconvenient Truth�
cheers,
Henry
February 19th, 2007 at 4:12 am
My point in my brief comments and question after the film “An Inconvenient Truth” was that the version of Gore’s family history only mentioned that his father had been a tobacco farmer, not Gore Sr.’s role in Congress, or his deep connections with the oil business and coal business. Why the mea culpa about tobacco (which had nothing to do with the rest of the film) and not regarding oil and coal, the Interstate Highway Act, and other issues actually pertaining to global warming?
If Rob found it difficult to understand my point perhaps its because a lady was physically trying to grab the mic from me almost as soon as I started to speak, plus a number of people were trying to shout me down.
You know, the Gore film was the first time I have been physically attacked for asking a question at a public event and the Dingell pancake breakfast is the second. Isn’t it ironic that both times the audience was so-called liberals, who supposedly value free speech and zealously protect the right, and duty, to publicly dissent on matters of public interest?
And it is further interesting that in both instances, people such as Rob have come forward, not to apologize, but to try to rationalize that somehow just by engaging in public dissent and discourse, I deserved to be physically attacked, intimidated, insulted, and subjected to a public dose of half-truths, falsehoods, innuendo, defamation and vilification.
That is not liberalism, and it is not democracy.
See: Letter to the youth of America
Do several convenient half-truths make “An Inconvenient Truth�
cheers,
Henry