Can Hate Talk Lead To Murder?

Filed in National by on June 12, 2009

Well, let’s face it… it doesn’t help.

Joan Walsh at Salon ponders the point.  Read the whole thing.  It’s a thoughtful, careful piece and well worth your time.

The range of crazy ideas about Obama is broad and wide: He’s a secret Muslim, he’s going to take our guns, he’s even the anti-Christ! James von Brunn just happened to be a “birther,” one of the nuts who believe that Obama wasn’t born here, his birth certificate is fake, and he thus isn’t eligible to be president. I thought it was strange and maybe a little ominous last summer when suddenly Obama was labeled a “socialist” and a “Marxist”; Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are arguably more liberal than Obama; why did he get tagged with that sinister, subversive, alien ideology? It seemed linked to the fact that he’s just so … different from other politicians, so easy to marginalize and, frankly, demonize.

Then came Rush Limbaugh with his sexual fears about having to “bend over and grab the ankles” for a black president. Soon Limbaugh was saying he hoped Obama fails; last week he said Obama was more dangerous to our country than al-Qaida, our terrorist enemy who has killed thousands of Americans. Could that conceivably inflame someone marginal and isolated to act against a president who’s more dangerous than terrorists?

I was unbelievably thrilled when Obama won.  But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that these emotions were mixed.  Given the heated primary and the nasty Palin/McCain rallies, I’d somehow let my attention drift from the knot in my stomach to savoring a historic victory.  The knot’s returned (actually, it never left), and is probably why the DHS report hit every nerve I possessed.  After all, it made sense.  And while I don’t want to debate the merits of the report, it’s meaning was clear.

And it’s the meaning that fuels my worst nightmares.  Parsing the report doesn’t change the truth.  We all knew what they were saying.  And they were right.  The hate talk, imo, is out of control… and escalating – and we all know where it’s heading and who it’s targeting.  Honestly, I have never heard such talk in the mainstream.  And that’s what’s bothering me – the ease with which killing people is discussed and accepted.  Here’s another example…

Colmes: …you then said, I asked for whom else are you praying in that fashion and you said President Obama. Are you praying for his death?

Drake: Yes.

Colmes: So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?

Drake: Yes.

Colmes: Are you concerned that by saying that you might find yourself on some secret service call or FBI most wanted list. Do you think it’s appropriate to say something like that or even pray for something like that?

Drake: I think it’s appropriate to pray for the will of God. I’m not saying anything, what I’m doing is repeating what God is saying, if that puts me on somebodies list then I’ll just have to be on their list.

Colmes: You would like for the president of the United States to die?

Drake: If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around I am asking God to enforce in imprecatory prayers throughout the scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct.

Wonder how many lone wolves are listening and taking notes.

So here’s my question… while I don’t advocate censoring free speech, do we have a responsibility to counter it – Loudly and forcibly?   Isn’t that free speech as well?

Update: Eugene Robinson’s article today is a must read.

What we don’t know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer — the next “lone wolf,” preparing to howl.

If you’re still here, you’re not reading Robinson’s article!

Update: Steve Newton notes that “the conservative evangelical leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny Hunt, immediately called him out in public.”  Much, much more of this, please.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (61)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Steve Newton says:

    Here’s a (serious) question, Pandora, on just one small piece of this issue.

    It is all very well and good and appropriate to lambast Drake for his comments, but if you do, don’t you also have an obligation to note that the conservative evangelical leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny Hunt, immediately called him out in public?

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/06/conservative-evangelical-christian.html

  2. liberalgeek says:

    Ya know what I’ve been wondering? I’ve been wondering if von Brunn has been watching the same satellite channels as one of our former commenters with Jewish Banker conspiracy theories.

  3. “What we don’t know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer — the next “lone wolf,” preparing to howl.”

    Actually we know that stifling words of opposition tends to empower the extremists not the free process. What is happening is abominable. I can understand why you all would like to shut people up. Fortunately we have a first amendment. Patriotism is best expressed in disagreeing with these unAmerican policies coming out of Washington which would control the lives of every American.

    They want to control pay, our choice to unionize, our local and state governments, what cars you drive, what jobs we have available, what energy sources we use, what health care we get, and even what our right to speak out for traditional values. America is under assault and the good people are going to rise up at the ballot box to put an end to it.

    That kind of speech my friend is the best of our traditions. The kill the fill in the blank types are not. If you can’t see the difference, you are as big a danger to our freedoms as they are.

  4. Miscreant says:

    “So here’s my question… while I don’t advocate censoring free speech, do we have a responsibility to counter it – Loudly and forcibly? Isn’t that free speech as well?”

    Yes, and yes.

  5. pandora says:

    Fair enough, Steve, but Dr. Johnny Hunt isn’t who our media whores are promoting – and that’s the problem. This sort of talk is becoming the norm.

    I’ll add your link – in fairness. Now all we need is for the MSM to do the same!

  6. Von Cracker says:

    Conservatives are rather religious, followers if you will. And given their propensity to be led around without questioning the words and thoughts (and the subsequently the motives behind it) of their selected leaders, I would have to say, yes, hate talk can lead to murder….especially if they believe in some mythical bullshit of a reward after death.

    Check out John Cole’s point about this….

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22503

    All this shit reminds me of a Cake song that sums it all up in the title – Sheep Go to Heaven (Goats Go to Hell).

  7. Steve Newton says:

    If you can’t see the difference, you are as big a danger to our freedoms as they are.

    David, that’s a croc. Pandora has been attempting to deal with this issue honestly for months, and while I have often disagreed with her (as I continue to do over the DHS report), what is a danger to our freedoms is for you to continue to suggest that her different interpretation of those freedoms and her insistence on public discourse about this issue.

  8. anonone says:

    Republican David has stated that he thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the North Korean government or any foreign government to lock-up and torture American journalists for doing their job.

    Therefore, Republican David’s opinion has zero credibility when it comes to freedom of the press or human rights as he believes that dictatorial or totalitarian rule rightfully trumps both.

  9. Steve Newton says:

    Dr. Johnny Hunt isn’t who our media whores are promoting

    A large part of the problem, here. Our media whores have a vested interest not in any constructive solution to these issues, but in the continued controversy over them.

    That’s why you still find Chrysler and GM advertising on Hannity and Rush.

  10. Von Cracker says:

    Also – if you cannot tell that the Conservative leaders out there, be it elected officials or “personalities”, are playing one massive game of Good Cop, Bad Cop….I’d say you’d better open up your ears.

    Say something outrageous, even inhuman, and then have someone else slightly rebuke it. But it’s out there regardless….and I think that’s the ultimate goal.

  11. pandora says:

    Thanks, Steve. I know I’m walking a tightrope here, but I just can’t ignore what’s going on. I think we need to discuss this – at least as much as people moan over Rap music. Ya think?

    It’s the easiness and carelessness of these calls for death that bother me – as well as the air time they receive.

    And, frankly, if I knew what to do, I wouldn’t keep writing posts about it.

  12. Dorian Gray says:

    The salient point of this post was made in its first sentence. Bill-O, Beck, Hannity, Rush rhetoric doesn’t help but ultimately it probably doesn’t matter. These people are deranged lunatics. If no media “personality” said anything the far-right, racist, fascist, wackos would probably decree some other “Jew” conspiracy to silence “the media”. A black guy is president and I voted for him, so it’s partially my fault.

  13. callerRick says:

    Speaking of ‘Rap,’ is that what causes the thousands of murders every year in America’s inner-cities?……Rap Limbaugh

  14. cassandra_m says:

    They want to control pay, our choice to unionize, our local and state governments, what cars you drive, what jobs we have available, what energy sources we use, what health care we get, and even what our right to speak out for traditional values. America is under assault and the good people are going to rise up at the ballot box to put an end to it.

    That kind of speech my friend is the best of our traditions. The kill the fill in the blank types are not. If you can’t see the difference, you are as big a danger to our freedoms as they are.

    You can see glimmers of what the issue is right here. There have always been people out there who are delighted to indulge in a fair bit of rhetorical belligerence because they can. They are mostly largely impotent types who get whatever upsmanship they get from whatever it is they’ve decided is oppressing them by loud, rude, and delusional talk. One key to how this kind of talk gets legitimized is the radio. People looking for audiences and paychecks who capitalize on the fears and loathings of these people and help them see themselves as legit. And the more legit you feel, the more you feel you can take the belligerent actions you’ve been mouthing off about.

    Delusional David here lionizes speech that is to a word a lie. Lies fed to him by his radio station and Fox News. Lies fed to him because the folks ginning this up know that there is a segment of the population decidedly more ready to operate from their fears (well founded or not) than from anything recognizable as reason. In this, David is not too far from the folks who would get a crowd worked up by claiming (mostly falsely) that a black man just looked at a white woman abit too long. And we all know what licenses were granted here.

    People are entitled to their words and they are even entitled to believe in the lies that people tell them. But when all of your outrage is based upon a victimization that is definitely more imagined than real, you are on the path to the kind of disconnects that violent are acting on and will continue to act on — because there is an entire industry in existence not just to validate this mess, but to make money off of it.

  15. anonone says:

    pandora,

    We absolutely have to counter it loudly and forcibly. Like overtly racist speech, it should be absolutely legal but socially unacceptable. Those who preach violence and advocate terrorism should not be given media megaphones, but should be publicly shamed and socially ostracized.

    And not only people like Drake, but more well-known people like Ann Coulter. Steve is right. Controversy and over-the-top rhetoric builds ratings and sells books.

  16. anonone says:

    pandora wrote:

    And, frankly, if I knew what to do, I wouldn’t keep writing posts about it.

    I think the only things we can do are to practice non-violence, keep speaking out against it, and teach our children that violence in all of its forms, including and especially war, is wrong.

  17. pandora says:

    Raising two children demonstrates daily how much words matter and how quickly words escalate into (mild) violence. In the blink of an eye something is thrown – usually a pillow, but if I didn’t intervene … Oy!

    It’s why schoolyard fights can become deadly – they’re usually egged on by bystanders.

  18. RSmitty says:

    Gave you some love with a cross-post, P.

  19. pandora says:

    Sigh… if only the world could be like us, Smitty! 😉

    Thanks. I’ll be right over!

  20. Perry says:

    Terrific discussion this is, on a critical topic with good suggestions to push back.

    The overarching problem is that needy people tune in to what they want to hear, as evidenced by the huge ratings of the Limbaughs and the Foxes, and the tons of income monies involved.

    The skewed distribution of wealth we now have produces immense political power in the hands of a wealthy few who have the means to get their fear messages out and acted upon.

    Obama has come along with his powers of persuasion that is scaring the crap out of these power brokers, which is why we are seeing language implying violent solutions expanding, to the point where there probably are plots in place out there to stop Obama cold. Then what happens to us? The tip of the iceberg is showing.

    Following A1’s advice is right on. Moreover, Joan Walsh’s piece is an important piece of the message, to make a broad spectrum of people aware of what is going on in our midst.

  21. callerRick says:

    “The skewed distribution of wealth we now have produces immense political power in the hands of a wealthy few….”

    Like George Soros? Right On!

  22. pandora says:

    Caller Rick, please try and bring something of substance to the discussion.

  23. Steve Newton says:

    Obama has come along with his powers of persuasion that is scaring the crap out of these power brokers

    Perry,
    I was walking along with you right up to here.

    Obama is scaring one group of power brokers because he is vesting power in a different group. Although he employs populist rhetoric, Obama is no populist tilting at corporate windmills in total, which explains why he has not done a thing to curb the defense lobby (one of his largest contributers) and why his financial team which is composed heavily of Goldmann Sachs alums has made so many deals that are … wait for it … beneficial to GS.

    President Obama, for all the mantra of change, is a traditional politician, and–as someone said somewhere on this site today–he’s actually far less liberal on many issues than Kerry or Hillary.

  24. pandora says:

    I have never argued that Obama is anything more than a great politician. It wasn’t liberals or Dems who labeled him the Messiah.

    Funny, how a lot of the hate talk has spun off this label… conjured up by the Right.

    (See how good I am at spinning the comments back to the post! 😉 )

  25. Progressive Mom says:

    “The skewed distribution of wealth we now have produces immense political power in the hands of a wealthy few….”

    So very true, and it cuts in all kinds of crazy directions. Right now, in that “liberal” bastion of New York State, we have no legislature, mostly because:
    1. of the “immense political power” in the hands of the very wealthy who are not our elected officials;
    2. crass, over the top rhetoric which has allowed allegedly sane adults to demonize and dehumanize their political opponents;
    3. the 24-hour echo chamber of radio call in shows, which has raised the rhetoric even further, making any attempt at sane compromise look worse than Chamberlain in the 1930’s.

    What has happened in NY is an example on a state-scale of what is happening nationally. The rhetoric is designed to make the extreme-talkers (let’s not call them extremists, because that, too, is a hot button) look “correct” and to make those few remaining adults who seek compromise, agreement and reasonable argumentation … well, “nuts.”

    Ergo, conservative sites are already name-calling Joan Walsh for her comments. I expect Eugene Robinson will get the same treatment.

  26. callerRick says:

    “Caller Rick, please try and bring something of substance to the discussion.

    Soros isn’t one of the politically-connected, ‘wealthy few?’ Oh, I see.

  27. pandora says:

    Here’s an interesting take on lone wolves:

    Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State-San Bernardino was interviewed by Newsweek about lone wolves this week, and the resulting piece is a worthy explainer:

    Was this an isolated incident?

    It’s isolated in the sense that this guy was a lone wolf, certainly in that he acted alone, but he’s part of a movement of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. He lists major Holocaust-denier groups on his Web site and how there is going to be a major Holocaust-denial conference on July 25 in Orange County, Calif. He may have acted like a lone wolf, but he is part of a movement.

    Are attacks like this simply desperate one-time acts?

    Within the white-supremacist movement there is a strong notion of leaderless resistance. The notion is this: look, we can take over the country just by having small cells or lone wolves commit key acts of violence because the rest of the country, at least the whites, will then go along with you. It’s called the “propaganda of the deed”—you know who the enemies are, you go out yourself and hopefully people will take notice and act together in resistance.

    These ideas were promoted by Louis Beam, a KKK member, and published in The Seditionist, his newsletter, in the early ’90s. It came out around 1991, but the idea has been pushed in the white-supremacist movement for a long time since. He has been a big influence on the white-supremacist movement. He’s a very scary guy. He was noteworthy because he was also part of the militia movement in the ’90s. He’s not the inventor of leaderless resistance, but he’s remembered for being the most important modern proponent of leaderless resistance in the neo-Nazi world.

  28. MJ says:

    Here’s a prime example on what can happen (in this case, the perp was arrested) – http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/11/us/AP-US-Blogger-Arrest-Lawmakers.html?_r=1.

  29. anon says:

    Eugene Robinson is a horrible writer. Even if I agree with him, his partisan tone is rancorous. Frankly his articles are at their best as they wipe the feces of my ass.

  30. Perry says:

    Right, the defense lobby and Goldman Sachs alums — good points, Steve.

    And Obama has rewarded the defense lobby with an accelerated war in Afghanistan with no exit strategy defined – very disturbing!

    And yes, Progressive Mom, on compromise it takes two willing sides. The Atwater/Rove tradition encourages demonization over compromise, which in the current climate generates on big NO! As a result, the good and healthy life passes us by, slowly but surely.

  31. Von Cracker says:

    feel better about yerself now, anon?

  32. Do you just lie or are you severely misreading #8? I don’t think that it is okay for North Korea to pick up Journalists and jail them. I don’t approve of the tactics of the regime though I do think the sudden concern of the media shows a misplaced priority. They should have been concerned about the 17 million who put up with this regime every day.

    I just think that the problem of how they treat those two journalists is only the beginning and there are bigger problems with that regime like its starving of hundreds of thousands of children in order to feed its weapons programs. Its completely closed society which stifles all journalistic dissent. The fact that any political opposition just disappears. The fact that contributes to instability around the world with its weapons proliferation.

    The fact that I said this is the least of our problems with the PRK doesn’t mean that I approve of them. It means what I said. I didn’t start to notice them when a couple of Americans were snatched. I had been against this axis of evil a long time ago.

  33. callerRick says:

    What about the ‘D.C. sniper,’ John Mohammad? How many innocent human beings did he murder?

    What was he reading? Who was he listening to?

  34. Perhaps I should run a linear weighted regression on right wing violence and the start of the internet. Seems they assume that this is the place for “pure” information and has led to extreme views being quickly accepted.

    I could do the same thing with Liberals but I’ll just see an increase in recycling.
    (crossposted as well)

  35. anon says:

    What was he reading? Who was he listening to?

    Army field manuals.

  36. I think that when you equate dissent which seeks peaceful change with anarchists and terrorists which seek to destroy the entire system through violence, that you are making a grave error that is much more of a threat to our liberty than the few radicals that are out there.

    These radicals have their own networks, shortwave broadcasts, websites, and books. They are not getting their marching orders from Rush or Bill. They think those guys are establishment shills to keep us in place by faking opposition. If you stop the legitimate opposition then those guys become the opposition. Then the entire locus of debate and power shifts. Radicalism becomes normal. Tyranny to stop it becomes acceptable. All is lost.

  37. CallerRick needs to use google…he was a muslim convert modeling himself after Osama Bin Laden.

  38. Von Cracker says:

    Some folks are just sociopaths, rick. You know the type – those who lack feelings of empathy….

    😀

  39. Perry says:

    A point to make is that this perp gave plenty of notice that he was up do doing harm.

    How many people do we need to watch closely to prevent the acting out? Better yet, can’t these people be picked up and charged criminally for making threats, assuming there is an applicable law that does not simultaneously step on free speech rights. Tricky business!

    This “propaganda of the deed” needs preventative scrutiny as well, probably best done by alert citizens who are sensitized to the threat and concerned about it.

  40. pandora says:

    LOL, VC! And soooo true.

    And, Troy, welcome. Nice looking blog you have there!

  41. anonone says:

    Republican David #32,

    No I am not making this up and you know it.

    Your response to American journalists being imprisoned and tortured by the North Koreans:

    “It is the punishment common in the culture. That is why you don’t break the laws. A lot of foreign prisons aren’t great. That is why it is punishment. The problem we have is not the prison; it is the travesty.”

    and

    “My simple solution is don’t break foreign laws. It is not the business of the U. S. to worry about your voluntary actions in an area that we warn you is dangerous.”

    Despicable.

    The thread is here:

    http://delawareliberal.net//2009/06/08/this-is-why-we-dont-torture-in-america/#comments

  42. Perry says:

    David: “They are not getting their marching orders from Rush or Bill.”

    David, you are kidding, right?

  43. You forgot this part.
    “These are the least of the problems in PRK. The only reason the journalist are complaining is because those are two of their own. If they were fighting for human rights, they would be mentioning it before now.

    It is life in PRK. What we should be talking about is the overall living conditions from prison to farm to town. It is a regime that starves children to be used as tools to get aid to build more weapons.”

    That is not endorsing the snatching of the journalists. It is a response to the idea that foreign prisons follow our lead in anyway. They don’t. I could show you a lot of nations where their prisons are not places to be. There is nothing despicable about saying the best way to avoid a prison is to keep the law. The U. S. should not make its self hostage to the voluntary actions of any citizen.

  44. Perry, his nickname is not Delusional David for nothing.

    I find this topic really interesting. To me this is the flip side of what I’ve seen Democrats do – which is run from any hint of controversy. Even 40 years later, conservatives still conflate liberalism with the violence associated with some in the anti-war movement and now the same thing is happening with the conservative movement.

    I fall heavily on the side of free speech but I do think there’s a line somewhere. I’ll give two examples. Hours before birther van Brunn went to the Holocaust Museum, Limbaugh spoke again about the supposed birth certificate issue. To me, that speech is protected and is not a cause of van Brunn’s actions although the birthers are a particularly angry group of conservatives. Now, Bill O’Reilly I don’t give a pass to. He called Dr. Tiller, “Tiller the baby killer,” said Tiller had blood on his hands and said Tiller will kill babies for $5000. I thinks O’Reilly’s words move into incitement.

  45. Here is a quote from a Free Republic commenter in response to a call to rally behind Rush as an answer to liberal attacks on him. I DON’T make this stuff up. Even Savage isn’t conservative enough.

    “Don’t expect Savage, Rush or Hannity to actually “do” anything, ever. They are to comfortable. If I was a conspiracy guy I would say they are a left wing plot to placate conservatives, to prevent them from “doing”.

  46. The fact that Tiller was a millionaire serial Killer for hire in the worst sense should have no baring U.I.? The man should have been arrested, tried, and convicted then put on death row in a just country. At least give him Life in prison like he would have in Ireland. One day that will be the law. Until then, the law has to be respected in that you can’t take it in your own hands. That destroys everything America stands for.

  47. The man was not a millionaire serial killer.

    He wasn’t a millionaire.
    He wasn’t a serial killer.

    He was a physician who helped women.

  48. Of course Rush doesn’t do anything. He’s in it to make money. He knows what his audience wants, that’s why he’s successful. I don’t think Limbaugh really thinks that Obama was born in Kenya. Only coocoo-bananas people think that. Limbaugh isn’t crazy.

  49. Von Cracker says:

    David prefers dead women, besides not knowing the meaning of certain words.

    It’s inappropriate speech like yours, David, that got Tiller killed.

  50. cassandra_m says:

    @48 — But he certainly counts on his audience to be. Crazy and credulous.

  51. pandora says:

    God, you’re infuriating! Abortion is legal. You may not like that, but that’s the fact. Dr. Tiller was not a serial Killer – except in your mind.

    Also, re-read your comment, David. WTF are you saying? This is what you guys do – condemn Dr. Tiller with hate filled language, then toss in “Oh, but the law should be respected.”

    Spare me your respect (wink, wink) for the law, because I’m betting the only law you feel compelled to obey is “god’s” law.

  52. cassandra_m says:

    via the Washington Monthly, we are reminded of this:

    [W]e hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.

    Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people.

    If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and, yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well. And to those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia, I remind you that we have freedom of speech, too. And we have responsibilities, too. And some of us have not discharged our responsibilities. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.

    If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake.

    Bill Clinton speaking after the bombing at the Murrah Federal Building in OK. A speech that the right thought was indefensible. But a speech still with a necessary message.

  53. anonone says:

    Republican David #43,

    You wrote “If they were fighting for human rights, they would be mentioning it before now.”

    I didn’t forget those parts. The fact is that those two journalist were fighting for human rights: they were working on a story about the trafficking of North Korean women into China when they were detained.

    But your attitude is “they broke North Korean law so why should we care if they’re tortured and imprisoned? They shouldn’t have broken the law.”

    What you think and wrote are monstrously anti-human rights, anti-free press and, indeed, anti-American.

    And because you actually mean it, it is probably the most sickening thing that I have ever read on any Delaware blog.

  54. No, it is not. I do not believe foreign policy should be determined by free lancers who defy our warnings. That does not mean that we “should not care nor attempt to get their release”. Far from it– we should, but it is not our primary issue nor should it be.

    I was referring to the stupid notion that Korean prison has anything to do with our policies. Most countries in the world have prisons that we would not consider humane. That won’t change by our moaning. The best solutions is obey local laws or you will suffer the consequences. That is just realism not anti-human rights et. al.

    You insist on distorting the point of view that I expressed. I was not even referring to the specifics of the two journalists in any of the writings. The “they” is the press which suddenly discovered there are human rights violations in PRK.

  55. Sorry, U. I. The only words that got people killed are the words in Roe v. Wade.

  56. Yes, no women ever died from a botched abortion before Roe v. Wade. No women have ever been murdered because of inconvenient pregnancies.

  57. In David’s world, women aren’t people. Only fetuses are.

  58. anonone says:

    Repub David wrote:

    “The best solutions is obey local laws or you will suffer the consequences.”

    Which is what all tyrants tell their citizens. And tyrants love people like you.

    Those American journalists were not disobeying any American laws – far from it. They were risking their lives to expose egregious human rights violations in the highest tradition of American journalism. What do you say? They defied “our warnings” so let ’em rot.

    For you to keep saying “the press…suddenly discovered there are human rights violations in PRK” is hogwash. Every western reporter who has been able to sneak into North Korea has reported that. These women were working on exactly that.

    How many more are going to try when there are people like you who care more for the local laws and kangaroo courts of tyrants than they do for their own American journalists?

    I don’t distort your words. Anyone with eyes to read and ears to hear can understand what you’re saying.

    You’re a modern-day Pharisee.

  59. mikeb302000 says:

    I say it’s not only the maniacs on TV and radio who preach that inciteful nonsense. It’s also the gun advocates who are unreasonable in their politics as well as the middle-of-the-road conservatives who say nothing.

  60. Art Downs says:

    The late doctor was a money-grubber who did a nasty job and made himself into a millionaire. Did he possess a particular skill akin to that of a great musical performer, inventor, scientist, or athlete? He just performed an act that few physicians were willing to undertake. Should one mourn his passing? The mode was criminal and should not be condoned. The killer should be prosecuted.

    John Brown was a fanatical abolitionist as well as a serial killer. He believed that he was above the law when he and his followers attacked the Arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Had he succeeded, there would have been a lot of bloodshed. Brown was properly hanged but some people thought of him as a martyr.

    Those who think of a late term abortion as a secular sacrament may be encouraging some fanatics on the other side to engage in overtly criminal acts. This does not justify murder.

    But what of crimes by self-styled ‘progressives’? Bill Ayres is as ‘innocent as OJ’ but has been lionized by the left with academic and foundation sinecures. Had he conspired to blow up abortion clinics rather than government facilities would his career have prospered?

  61. skippertee says:

    I’m with Repube David.Every literate person in the free world already knows N.Korea,as a country,is illogical,insane and dangerous.Trying yo enter N.Korea without the proper visas,permits and whatever else required shows a dangerous lack of common sense.What were those two Gore groupies hoping to expose to the world that we don’t already know?Now,due to their capture,they have inserted themselves into an already complicated situation.[I’ll reverse my position if it’s shown the border guards grabbed them illegally.]