Counterpunch: hyperbole don't help

Counterpunch has a great post up about the distorted and one-sided nature of the coverage of the Cynthia McKinney incident. I haven't blogged about this because I don't know the facts of the case and because, absent that, I can imagine a couple of different scenarios, equally likely, in which either Rep McKinney or the Capitol cops are most culpable.

But Counterpunch headed the post "the Lynching of Cynthia McKinney," and I have to call them on their language. Lynching is the unlawful murder (often preceded by torture) of an individual or individuals exerting mob justice. It was bullshit when Clarence Thomas claimed during his confirmation hearings that those investigating Anita Hill's allegations were guilty of "a lynching", and it's bullshit for Counterpunch to use the term now.

Because it cheapens and appropriates the horror of lynching's reality for the sake of a shakey and inflammatory analogy. Let's ask the families and friends of those who were lynched whether what happened to Clarence, or to Rep McKinney, qualifies, shall we?