It was brought to my attention by Mr. Matt Komanecky that our president may very likely be in Springfield on (I believe) this coming Sunday (the 3rd).
I read the account of how it was "invitation only" and I commented to Matt that I saw it somewhat unlikely that we would be able to get near that area and whatnot, and that it's set up to be this "image of Orwellian unanimity" as I put it.
Then I started thinking, well, what if it /was/ open to the public? Anyone could come in, hold signs, dissent, stand and turn their backs to the president, etc. That's a very real possibility, especially if groups organized, and camped out the night before to be sure and fill the area with dissenting cronies. This is a fearful image in the eyes of the organizer, and in the eyes of the GOP.
At the same time, imagine if Ralph Nader or (my own personal hero) Howard Zinn was to come and speak in the area. Would I welcome a mass of protesters to come in and speak out (in a peaceful way) against my hero? [if such a things would happen] Would I only inform or invite those that would support this cause? Am I guilty of the double standard? Perhaps.
Would it be a positive thing to allow people of all viewpoints to stir things up at all times, and on both sides?
Are we guilty of double standards here?
Would it make people more aware? More talkative? More interested in events and opinions on both sides?
-would the gloves come off?-