Thursday, October 23, 2008

It's in the assumptions.

I was reading a story this morning about police preparing for unrest on Election day (unrest? did they miss their naps? I've never liked this mask for rioting) and came to a dead stop when I read this line:

Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations.

Talk about your target-rich environments! if...there is suspicion of foul play? If? Can anyone imagine a scenario in which the progressives believe Obama lost *without* foul play? Not me, no way could I believe that those same progressives who have even publicly stated they believe Bush would never allow another election, he'd impose martial law first, would buy an Obama loss without sincere accusations of a stolen election.

And what about the racist part? Violence could ensue in cities with large black populations? I can't believe an editor let that go by. Isn't it the white people who would be rioting when Obama wins, if they are racists? Anybody worried about that?

Further on (after I've recovered from my laughter-induced asthma fit) I notice that Carville said earlier this month that “it would be very, very, very dramatic out there” if Obama lost. He was careful to point out that he did not explicitly predict rioting and went on to say a lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger. He didn't mean *riots*, oh no, he just thinks progressives are all a bunch of drama queens!

I don't understand why I don't see more about the possibility of Republicans rioting. After all, they've got the guns. But apparently they're too sober and depressed, or unimportant, or something, to worry the press. And of course nobody would suggest libertarians might riot: they don't believe in collective action!

All this concern is distracting us. I want to know, from what?

No comments: