America Has Become a Country That Rewards Cruelty and Stupidity
Just think of all the stupidty and anti-factual BS we have to contend with on this very blog. That willing stupidity and calavier cruelty originates in the human heart – but it is nurtured by our culture. Why? Because at some point someone figured out that there was money to be made by nursing the evil, narrow cruelty that lurks in all of us. As a culture we can try to mitigate the darkness or promote it. America has decided to promote it. .
How else could you explain rich talk show hate-mongers like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingram?
Adkisson told Still that since “he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.”
Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because “he expected to be killed during the assault.”
Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday’s mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of “the liberal movement,” and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.
Knox News Via Kos
Let’s be clear that Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, or Sean Hannity did not pull the trigger. But has Kos diarist fivefouranonymous points out, “These pundits have a consistently hateful message and a consistently loud megaphone that permeates our culture, so I imagine if nothing else, it encourages hate.. Hate perpetuates itself.”
And sometimes the good guys can make a difference — Mike Savage’s radio program dropped by several stations and advertisers.
There’s a petition to get him fired.
But I agree with your point. I watched a bunch of people take DV to task today for not being appropriately respectful of Bob Novack and his condition, as if respect for anyone is something you only have to invoke for the ill or the dead.
Extremists on both sides of the political aisle perpetuate hate.
I also think there are aspects of extreme liberalism AND religious conservatism that could be classified as mental disorders.
Hoplophobia for example is an actual mental disorder, and while it’s not confined to the left it seems to be more prevalent among the extreme left, as is seen in the blog posts and comments of the more left leaning members here.
I’d argue that hatred of liberals did not motivate the shooter. Hatred of liberals in this case was the symptom of a particular form of mental illness that would have fixated on something (Jodi Foster, anyone?) had am radio not been around.
I see a general coarsening of American culture, of which Michael Savage and sometimes even the Daily kos are all part of….
These days, what liberal group in this country goes around killing people?
(insert abortionist joke here)
The “both sides do it” argument is bullshit.
“I’d argue that hatred of liberals did not motivate the shooter. Hatred of liberals in this case was
the symptom of a particular form of mental illness that would have fixated on something (Jodi Foster, anyone?) had am radio not been around.”
I agree with Steve – Plenty of people hate liberals, or at least liberal policies. And if some of the posters & commenters on this site are any indication there’s also deep hatred of anything/anyone even remotely conservative or non-liberal. These things alone do not cause someone to go out and murder people.
Fiercely anti-gun people tend to be some of the most violent. They also tend to be liberal
“The “both sides do it” argument is bullshit.”
I can’t believe you’re saying that with a straight face.
Extremist environmental groups immediately come to mind.
Anti-gun liberals like Chicago Mayor Daley, Mayor Nutter, and the politicians responsible for the DC gun ban all have the blood of the dead on their hands.
VC – One could argue that conservatives ( a prayer group) were targeted in Paducah, KY. While the shooters were obviously not model liberals, I doubt that this guy was a model conservative either.
I blame Libertarians.
🙂
These days, what liberal group in this country goes around killing people?
What “conservative group” is going around killing people now? This was a lone nutcase….
If you want to make the argument that liberalism is so potent a force for good that it keeps the mentally ill from committing crimes, while holding the opposing view prepares people to be killers, go ahead….
And Mike W., I did not say anything remotely resembling “plenty of people hate liberals,” nor did I make this a pro- or anti-gun argument. Geez. Don’t help me if you don’t understand what I’m saying.
You know, geek, the Libertarian Simbianese Liberation Ron Paul Army has had its eye on you for some time…..
Of course it is a typical liberal stance to blame anyone or anything but the person ultimately responsible. THE SHOOTER. Not the gun, not liberals or conservatives, not videogame violence, age, not bad upbringing or abusive childhood.
It is easy to say that both sides do it — it lets you off the hook from ever evaluating the reach, influence or even the real content of the worst of the right wing pundits.
There are no extreme left pundits with the platform or credibility to reach as many of the extreme left — this industry of thuggery is pretty much the expertise of the right. There are no left counterparts (in platform, reach or influence) to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, O’Reilly. You’ll trot out a few, but none of them will be anywhere near as influential and none of them will be straight-up party pundits in the way these are. And here’s a hint — there is no one who writes here who even begins to qualify as an equivalent to these right wing pundits.
And we aren’t talking about mental disorders. We are talking about an accepted rhetoric that is long on offensive and violent language aimed not only at Democrats but also to members of their own party that they don’t perceive as sufficiently thuggish in their own right ( how about Limbaugh calling out McCain as Not a Real Man a few months ago). This rhetoric is supposed to ratchet up the fear and belligerence factor — and this is accepted enough that it is taking some real work to peel off Savage subscribers and stations. If this had been said by any liberal of note, that would be a part of his Permanent Record (cf, Jessie Jackson’s despicable hymietown reference) — trotted out occasionally to remind people that even he can’t be entirely trusted. But Ann Coulter gets a pass on the multiple times she has called for the killing of people by folks suddenly deciding she is just being funny. She can attach herself to candidates (Mitt Romney) and those candidates NEVER have to be held accountable for her words. Unlike liberals, who are endlessly being required to account for the words of their supporters.
You are warned, mike w, that your first job in this argument is to establish liberal equivalents to Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Savage and O’Reilly — and that means extreme leftists with the kind of audiences and widespread respect and influence that these have. Because without those equivalents, you have no argument.
“And Mike W., I did not say anything remotely resembling “plenty of people hate liberals,” nor did I make this a pro- or anti-gun argument. Geez. Don’t help me if you don’t understand what I’m saying.”
Sorry. I was agreeing with you that hatred of any one group was not what motivated the shooter.
And if some of the posters & commenters on this site are any indication there’s also deep hatred of anything/anyone even remotely conservative or non-liberal.
geek–Horrors. Is this true? Could it be true? You hate me because I’m Libertarian (and you secretly know that if I participated in DHB I’d wipe the floor with you all)?
I am shocked. Next I’ll learn that somebody could be nicknamed lickspittle or even murderboy and not understand the nature of the blogosphere beast.
Yes, yes. I admit it. Full of hate and rage…
That’s me.
I will pledge my votes in the DHB contest to anyone who brings me Mike’s head on a silver platter.
That’s a joke, BTW
Cassandra – It’s sad that you believe cruelty and bigotry to be something that’s confined to only one side of the political spectrum. You also (not surprisingly) vastly overestimate the appeal of these so called “right wing pundits.” I have never listened to Limbaugh aside from the occasional instance where he gets on the news for saying something ridiculous.
Are Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright not bigoted as well?
Geek & Steve – notice I said “some”….
And Geek, do you really think you need to put “that’s a joke BTW.” It should be obvious.
We have a lot of rage-oholics. Just watching out for your safety.
And sometimes irony doesn’t translate well in type.
Neither Farrakan or Wright have the audience, influence or respect that these right wing pundits do. And, if you haven’t noticed, neither is a political pundit, being paid millions to appear on hundreds of radio outlets each day, either.
Try again.
“I am shocked. Next I’ll learn that somebody could be nicknamed lickspittle or even murderboy and not understand the nature of the blogosphere beast.”
I understand it entirely and was not personally offended by the nickname ‘murderboy.” I did however find it useful as an illustration of what the anti-rights side ultimately has to resort to when they have no reasoned argument to make.
What’s sad is Cassandra actually thinks the “right wing pundits” actually have widespread respect and a broad audience among Conservatives.
The left spreads tons of bigotry and “anti-factual BS.” Have you ever seen The Brady Campaign, The VPC, MMM, or the AMA and the outright bigotry and “anti-factual BS” they spread with the help of the MSM?
I agree that it’s the person and not the gun. But I’m sure we can chalk-up another murder through the misinterpretation of religious text, dogma, or whatever.
And here’s something…the only reason morons habitually buy crap from O’really, Rush, and those other merchants of blame, is for affirmation. Affirmation for one’s values and beliefs. It’s certainly not to practice something new or different….
“Extremist environmental groups immediately come to mind.”
huh, like off the coast of Norway protecting whales 20 years ago?
Can’t name an American instance, can you?
A 20 million-listener audience for Rush Limbaugh is a pretty broad audience, I’d say. I don’t think that Fox News gets this many viewers in a day. And you certainly do know, mike w, that these people are lionized by conservatives — somebody is buying (at least some of) Ann Coulter’s books.
Having trouble coming up with an extreme left version of Limbaugh? With 20 million listeners?
Mike doesn’t listen to Rush, so he doesn’t count… convenient.
Good thing I don’t listen to Wright or Farrakhan.
True conservatives don’t like Bush, hence is 25% approval rating.
That 25%? Most are Fox News and AM talk fans.
Going down with the ship, I guess.
Your problem is you believe that those who listen to Limbaugh automatically take any ignorant or bigoted statements he makes as gospel. Maybe they listen because it’s sheer ridiculousness? I know I find myself watching Chris Matthews and Olbermann at times for pure entertainment value. I want to hear what the next moronic thing they’re going to say will be. Hell, certain folks on Fox News are no less ridiculous with what they say about the left.
Of those 20 million how many blindly follow limbaugh and blindly act on what he says? Millions are blindly following Obama based on his “Hope & Change” message.
I think I missed the Hope, Change and the-only-good-conservative-is-a-dead-conservative speech. Was that in Germany?
Have you ever seen The Brady Campaign, The VPC, MMM, or the AMA and the outright bigotry and “anti-factual BS” they spread with the help of the MSM
I don’t know what the VPC or MMM is and I think that the AMA would be stunned to be classified as extreme left. But all of them would be shocked to know they are radio hosts, which is what we are talking about here.
No LG, that speech was in Greenwich Village. How many times do I have to remind you?
Weak comparison. Can’t stop laughing….
Your attempts of equation make no sense; all it would take is no more than 5 questions to crush it.
you believe that those who listen to Limbaugh automatically take any ignorant or bigoted statements he makes as gospel
Lots do — that is part of the definition of influence. You can certainly here enough of them credulously repeating back that mess as fact. And I work with alot of guys who do listen to this stuff and take it all at face value. And they aren’t laughing, either. Josh Marshall at TPM documents via screen cap Time Magazine credulously reporting something or another Limbaugh has to say. Time Magazine and Mark Halperin is supposed to be very senior political observer.
And we are still on radio pundits here — which Obama is not.
I did however find it useful as an illustration of what the anti-rights side ultimately has to resort to when they have no reasoned argument to make.
But here’s the problem, mike. Part of the culture of this particular blog is insults for everybody. And everybody eventually gets offended at something and comes back later; and there are also folks who propose ridiculous arguments.
To make your bones here, and to be considered worthy of serious engagement on any level above name-calling, you have to actually make and back arguments.
For the most part, as far as I can tell, in your posts in this thread and others you haven’t done that, and you have continually come into other people’s house and told them what idiots they are without earning that right with a substantive intellectual addition to the conversation.
I am sorry to make that observation because on many issues I’m far closer to your position than to theirs. Which is, I guess, why I keep trying to tell you that your current approach is neither going to convert/cow anyone here or give you much satisfaction either.
What is Mike W’s position on abortion…….? On eradicating the Bush tax cuts, on running this country on energy not coming from fossil fuels, on personal and sexual freedom… I must have missed something over the give and take, and unfortunately do not know…..
Since Steve agrees somewhat, there is a possibility that common ground exists between Mike and myself as well. I just do not know at this stage….
“To make your bones here, and to be considered worthy of serious engagement on any level above name-calling, you have to actually make and back arguments.”
Really? Based upon what I saw in many of the gun threads I’d have thought name calling and not backing your argument with facts was a proud part of this blog’s culture.
“As far as I can tell, in your posts you have continually come into other people’s house and told them what idiots they are without earning that right with a substantive intellectual addition to the conversation.”
Really? Go back and read the gun threads and tell me who was calling anyone and “idiot” or not making a “substantive intellectual addition to the conversation.”
Kavips – Sexual freedom – people can do what they want and the government shouldn’t “legislate morality.” If gays want to get married I say go for it. If they’re happy that’s all that matters.
I’m pro-alternative energy, but feel we shouldn’t screw ourselves by refusing to drill in the meantime. I also think there are serious issues with certain alternatives that no one seems to want to talk about in the craze to get off of fossil fuels.
Abortion. – I tend to fall against it from a moral standpoint, but I’m pro-choice because I don’t feel it’s my place (or anyone else’s) to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion. It’s her body, her choice. Not to mention it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not, but the risks increase greatly if it’s not. Also, as a man I don’t feel I have the right to tell women what reproductive choices they may / may not take.
Steve. Mike W has a point. I remember thinking the same thing as I thread through the comments, but one has to go back to the original post to see it… I remember wondering where the term “murderboy” came from……..
It was a non sequitur…..
Yep, I was right. We share common ground on all three. I guess that now makes me a wing nut too….
I didn’t read all the posts … didn’t need to. The last time I checked, we all make our own choices. Can’t blame ANYONE or ANY SIDE for stupid people doing stupid things. Nice try to place blame tho … but get real and get accountable.
Mike and Rod display exactly the type of willing stupidity that I was talking about.
As Cassandra points out, there is no way to equate the right wing’s hate industrial complex with anything on the left and yet they do it.
This ability of large parts of society to openly (proudly) reject reality is part of the problem and it is something that has grown up in my lifetime.
Jason – so you blame the right wing talking heads for this shooting?
I would say that the liberal bias/indoctrination present in Academia more than makes up for the “right wing whacko’s” you guys are going on about, and it most certainly reaches a broader audience.
The higher education in this country leans far to the left and has more of an influence than Limbaugh and his ilk ever will.
“Anti-gun liberals like Chicago Mayor Daley, Mayor Nutter, and the politicians responsible for the DC gun ban all have the blood of the dead on their hands.”
Ah, I see. Guns don’t kill people, liberals kill people. Nicely reasoned, sir.
Here’s what I see… most conservatives wouldn’t go out and blow up an abortion clinic, but there is a quite a bit of head nodding when it happens and very little condemnation.
Which is sorta funny since conservatives like Limbaugh, etc. had a hissy fit because they felt that the Muslim community wasn’t vocal enough after 9/11. Either individuals are responsible for their individual actions or the group is responsible for individuals actions. You can’t have it both ways when it suits you.
Good point. There is very little condemnation of these shooting rampages among conservatives.
In fact, after VA Tech shooting conservatives blamed the University and the state of Virginia for not allowing students to carry guns on campus.
It was worth the ten minutes I spent reading these comments to see someone argue that ‘anti-gun liberals’ have blood on their hands.
You are one creepy dude…
I like the fact that Pandora narrowly tailored her argument to only include radio show hosts, the one area of the media dominated by conservatives. But the truth of the matter is, liberals dominate most other aspects of this culture, whether it is the MSM (most editors and reporters vote for Democrats), Hollywood, fiction, television or the internet. You don’t really have to look very far to find stereotypes of conservatives as backward, bigoted, uneducated mouth-breathers. Yet Rush Limbaugh has a popular radio program and he’s the source of all evil? Puh-lease.
This may come as a shock, but most people who read Hannity, Coulter, or even Savage also read a lot of other things as well. If finding a book in someone’s house is the sole indicator of why they may or may not go nuts, then maybe we need to sue Random House for all those dictionaries they produce.
It’s just a sleight-of-hand to argue that Louis Farrakhan doesn’t count because he doesn’t have a radio program. That conveniently knocks out about 80% of the liberal talking heads. Nice work.
See what I mean? More excuse making, …and still no condemnation of the shooter. Shameless.
“In fact, after VA Tech shooting conservatives blamed the University and the state of Virginia for not allowing students to carry guns on campus.”
And rightly so. If a public institution forces students to be disarmed then they should be held liable for keeping students safe.
And Dorian, yes they do have blood on their hands. They’ve denied their citizens the right, and the means of self-defense while denying responsibility for keeping them safe (see Warren v. D.C., also Riss v. NY) Since the police cannot and are not obligated to protect individual citizens and at the same time they deny those citizens the right to protect themselves, yes, they do have “blood on their hands.”
“See what I mean? More excuse making, …and still no condemnation of the shooter. Shameless.”
By whom? I know I said that THE SHOOTER was ultimately the one responsible for his actions.
More of the same. Are you really saying that Va Tech has blood on its hands?
You know what? Enough of this, I can’t let myself get dragged into this nonsense again.
You believe what you want and be happy. Just don’t shoot me.
Thanks.
Yes. Am I saying they’re directly responsible? NO. The shooter is ultimately responsible for his actions. However, when the government or a public institution creates a “gun-free zone” they should be held responsible for the safety of every citizen who’s right to effective self-defense they’ve denied. If they fail to guarantee such safety then they are complicit in any harm that comes to those who’s right they’ve denied.
And thank you Sharon. You provide a voice of reason instead of this incessant shouting that “OMG, the evil conservatives control everything!”
There is an interesting inconsistency here. If guns are denied by a public body and someone gets hurt, the public body shares in the blame. However, if guns are allowed by a public body and someone gets killed by a gun, then it’s solely the shooters fault.
Look at it in this light: if the VA Tech administration allowed guns on campus, and this shooting occurred, but with the added occurrence of return fire that kills a innocent, would conservatives hold VA Tech responsible to the collateral death?
“Look at it in this light: if the VA Tech administration allowed guns on campus, and this shooting occurred, but with the added occurrence of return fire that kills a innocent, would conservatives hold VA Tech responsible to the collateral death?”
I certainly hope not, and I know I would not hold them responsible. If the State of Delaware granted someone a CCW permit, or left them free to OC in accordance with the law, and that person later went out and murdered someone I wouldn’t hold the State of Delaware responsible. The State allows people to exercize a civil right. They’re not responsible for the criminal misuse of said right.
Lawful carrying of firearms is already allowed in most places in this country. If a shooting occurs somewhere that firearms are allowed we don’t place the blame on those who failed to make said place a “gun-free zone.” Depriving everyone of their civil, and natural rights because of what “might” happen is entirely different. I don’t condone the creation of zones where Constitutional rights no longer apply.
Sharon
Liberals dominate the internet?
Given that I choose what to visit with my own search engine and search terms, the question would be: how?
Agreed. No one side dominates the internet. It’s not even possible.
And really, that’s what’s great about the internet as a political medium.
We’re still here? Heh…
You can’t equate the violence from the 50s & 60s; even into the 70s from the Black Power (or empowerment) movement to those nutjobs on the right…they were fighting for their freedoms, at least equality. Farrakhan, X, or whomever, you may not like it, but they were justified, in a natural sense. Go ahead and get shit on for centuries; you won’t be fighting back with kid gloves….
I think blaming each side is a byproduct of our shitty political discourse, where no matter how idiotic or implausible, there’s always some talking head or well-paid mercenary taking the “other side” of the argument. The Media is more than willing to offer bogus positions credence under the guise of “Balance”, either for self-interest (read: Fox News) or public perception. Most of the time, there is no need for a balance because some things are just right or wrong, and no position other than the ONE can be correct.
Case in point: Torture. One side says “Torture is wrong. It places our own people in danger and it’s proven not to provide credible information.” The False-Argument side will say: “What about a ticking time bomb?”
This is not a position of fact; it’s an emotional appeal, and it’s bullshit. But you’ll still see the “other side” on the TV saying the same plea over and over again, with no repudiation.
Many on the right talk about a liberal media, why is that? The Media is, by all means, Corporate. Corps, and the people who run them, do not like regulation. For the most part liberals prefer more regulation, more competition, and more taxation on profit. So do you really think that these people, who are at the top, overwhelmingly vote liberal? I will concede that many of the reporters & talking heads may have a liberal disposition, but what the Right is propagating is that the inmates are running the asylum. Maybe it’s the reality on the ground that influences these reporters and such, and maybe that reality happens to fall within the liberal part of the spectrum, just like that Colbert quote says.
Rush, Hannity, FoxNews, Corp Heads, et al, along with Bu$hCo are tantamount to a dam, holding back the waters of information (while replacing it with their own reality). Of course, you have to let some water through, otherwise the ever-increasing pressure will cause an uncontrollable deluge, but the purpose is always to manage the flow.
I still can think of any American liberal groups where someone went out in a rage and murdered innocents.
“The Media is more than willing to offer bogus positions credence under the guise of “Balance”, either for self-interest (read: Fox News) or public perception. ”
Ask your girl Pelosi about that. She’s the one pushing the “Fairness Doctrine.”
It’s funny that Sharon shows back up here with her faulty7 reading comprehension again. Go back to Jason’s original argument — “These pundits have a consistently hateful message and a consistently loud megaphone that permeates our culture, so I imagine if nothing else, it encourages hate.. Hate perpetuates itself.” These pundits (sorry to have to point out) are the right-wing radio idiots. That is the subject of this conversation, and you still cannot name an extreme left pundit with the kind of audience and influence that those wingnuts do.
And this argument is not about control. It is about the extraordinarily thuggish and hateful rhetoric that flows from this block of well-thought of (by conservatives) pundits that you all seem to find rather ordinary.
And again, there is no one on the left with the kid of audiences that these folks get (or the kid of respect that these folks get) who can respectably trade in that kind rhetoric.
Fairness doctrine is BS, a bad response to a real problem.
It just should be public mocking and shunning for the lying liars and water-carriers.
Here you go: Ben Stein – instead of “Republican Consultant”.
The byline should be: “Proven Liar who will disregard evidence and reason, if politically and economically expedient”.
Truth in Chyrons Act — I could vote for that.
Mike is too young to know what America was like befor angry crazy people were allowed to go on the radio to lie and spread hatered of fellow Americans for 6 hours at a stretch simply because they happened to disagree about some poltical issue.
It was nice. I miss it.
And you’d rather censor them? How American of you. How progressive, tolerant and….liberal.
I respect the right of people to say blatantly stupid shit, and even make racist, bigoted, and homophobic remarks. I’ll simply choose not to listen to such things, or to call them out on their bigotry.
We protect even the most unpopular speech for a reason. It’s why we allow even Nazi’s and the KKK to publish and distribute pamphlets and hold marches. I’ll support such freedom of speech no matter how despicable their positions may be to me.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/quote-of-day_17.html
No, I agree.
If the people listen, they should have a platform. With that said, we reserve the right to blame them to come at them with the same amount of vigor. But they shouldn’t get a free pass on things such as wanting to “blow up” the Coit Tower or true instances of libel.
Their time will pass; it’s the legacy that I’m worried about….
I respect the right of people to say blatantly stupid shit<.i>
You also exercise that right with vigor.
“I respect the right of people to say blatantly stupid shit
You also exercise that right with vigor.”
Likewise. All one has to do is look at your and DTB’s comments in the gun threads to see you exercize that right with vigor.
Von – I don’t condone libel and slander, no matter what side of the political spectrum does it.
Funny thing is, Jason, is that it is tough to know if these so-called pundits believe in whatever crazyness they are talking about that day or if they do it to get paid. David Foster Wallace wrote an amazing article in The Atlantic (which is in his last nonfiction book too) that suggests that these right-wing venues are more about money than they are about ideology:
Whatever the social effects of talk radio or the partisan agendas of certain hosts, it is a fallacy that political talk radio is motivated by ideology. It is not. Political talk radio is a business, and it is motivated by revenue. The conservatism that dominates today’s AM airwaves does so because it generates high Arbitron ratings, high ad rates, and maximum profits.
Which makes neither the leaders of the conservative movement who crafted this network nor the consumers of this stuff look especially good here.
vC
I agree with you on everything in the last comment except “their time will pass.” It won’t, and that dynamic in American society won’t go away. It has always been there (see Richard Hofstader, Anti-Intellectualism in American History), but changes in technology and media allow for changes in the pulpit.
jason (ironically, like Ronald Reagan always did) is remembering a past that never existed. He may not have heard the hate on nationally syndicated radio shows, but it was there on local shows all along, and did quite well. It was there in John Birch society hand-outs. It was there in Impeach Earl Warren signs.
I will even agree with vC that the “hate” (which more closely equates on the part of the listeners to “fear”) has been seized on predominantly by the Right to sign up foot-soldiers and voters.
But the Left needs that “hate” just as bad to squeeze large donations and create an enemy to join together is disparate coalition together.
The Abolitionists needed slavery as the key issue for social reform. When slavery ended without a major social upheaval to grant equal civil rights to Blacks, the Abolitionists ceased to exist as a force in American politics.
Just like the Right needed communism and socialism to cement together its coalition, the Left cynically uses “hate” as an issue it really doesn’t want to resolve, even though I don’t doubt the motivations of any individual posting here against such speech.
The difference in the past that Jason recollects is that when the ranting and raving had a political bent, there was supposed to be a presentation of contracting viewpoints by broadcast venues. Certainly the John Birchers and the various anti-communist crazies had plenty of communication opportunities, but their rhetoric didn’t get absorbed by Walter Cronkite as a daily part of how he reported the news. The sea change is not that extreme right pundits have a sophisticated medium, it is that not only is their rhetoric violent, but that rhetoric is just fine with huge numbers of people. You can’t watch much (at least cable) news and not see the influence (and credibility) of extreme rightwing pundit rhetoric and tactics. Jason’s point, I think is that what used to be rightfully marginal is alarmingly treated as mainstream.
And since it is the “Left” that is the biggest target of all of this rhetorical thuggery and violence, some amount of pushing back on that is about self-preservation. “Resolving” any of this is largely about countering and pushing back on the acceptability creep of that rhetoric — most of us are not going to be supportive of anyone who would call autistic kids “brats”, or call for violence against gays or people in the NYT building.
Steve,
Your knee-jerk ability to create false equivalencies is beneath someone with your intellect. Just admit that “hate radio” has been dominated by Republicans without qualification.
Also..
. It was there in John Birch society hand-outs. It was there in Impeach Earl Warren signs.
John Birch society handouts and Impeach Warren signs are not equal to large multinational corporations that create untold hours of programming with the express intent of nursing American vs. American hatred.
Radio isn’t the only kind of media Jason.
And yes, talk radio does seem to be dominated by conservatives.
You can’t take the effect and make it the cause.
So, millions of people listen to conservative talk radio and because one guy shoots some people in a church it’s *all* the fault of conservative talk shows? That’s faulty logic of the worst sort.
The shooter in Knoxville had had a string of very bad luck, including a nasty divorce, unemployment and other problems. He latched on to something HE decided he could do something about. And guess what? It’s not Rush Limbaugh’s fault or Sean Hannity’s fault. It’s the guy in Knoxville’s fault.
So, Pandora, you’re right that the Left hasn’t been able to get many people to listen to their ranting and raving. But that doesn’t mean liberals and Democrats haven’t wielded an unbelievable amount of power over the culture for the last 50 years or so. I gave you examples of areas where liberals dominate the culture we live in, including movies and television. But your fixation with talk radio as Satan doesn’t allow you to notice the manipulation of popular culture from the Left. Here’s an example: How many pro-Iraq War movies has Hollywood made? You think that’s just a fluke? Don’t “corporations” run Hollywood, as well?
“So, millions of people listen to conservative talk radio and because one guy shoots some people in a church it’s *all* the fault of conservative talk shows? That’s faulty logic of the worst sort.”
It’s not that surprising of a logical jump for the kind of folks who think guns actually cause crimes. If an inanimate object can cause violent actions why not the words of a conservative talk show host?
It’s also ironic that this shooter blamed “liberalism” for his problems when liberal policies would actually work to help someone in his situation. I don’t really give weight to what he said anyway. Crazy people say crazy things.
“AMA would be stunned to be classified as extreme left. ”
The AMA is anti-gun
Jason
AM Talk Radio has been dominated by far right whackos. I have no trouble admitting that.
And I agree with your point (although I’d state it a little differently) that the creation of the multi-media corporations have done us no favors in that regard.
And I want to see a far more civil, rational discourse.
Where I don’t agree is how we get there. Even if I were a guy who went in for government regulation (which you know I’m not), the Fairness Doctrine is an artifact of the pre-conglomerate, pre-internet, pre-cell phone days and it will not achieve what you want it to achieve.
I don’t know the answer, but I do know that it doesn’t begin with State censorship of particular forms of political speech.
Mike: The AMA is anti-gun; ok; but it is also anti-drug war. Single-issue litmus tests are a problem.
MIKE W>
The biggest BS being spun today is by Bush and McSame on off shore drilling.
First there is over 6 million acres or more now under lease that the oil companies have not drilled on yet.
Second can McSame and Bush assure us that this oil would be used for our consumption. Or will any oil taken be shipped off to Japan and other Asian countries like the oil from the north slope of Alaska. When the last time I looked it was part of the united states.
I stand corrected there are 68 million acres that are under lease to the Oil companies which there hasn’t been one well drilled on yet.
What’s an order of magnitude among friends?
TT
The 68 million under lease–what are the terms of the leases, and does anyone know for sure there is oil there?
(as dv would say, “serious question”)
Steve – a reasonable question. The website for it is quite difficult to decipher if you aren’t a member of the industry (maybe it’s hard for them also). But they do continue to lease these undeveloped lands. Cassandra said that they had recently be re-upped by the oil industry, so I supposed someone thinks they are worth paying for.
geek–I seem to recall reading something about there being some kind of futures or derivatives market in those leases; I also have a half-baked memory that there is some sort of requirement to have so much acreage in leases to get certain kinds of government subsidies.
I really haven’t investigated it, and I suspect that 99% of the people talking about it in “talking points style” haven’t either.
I think we need to find out.
There is a list of “planned” dates for exploration on a bunch of the leases in Alaska. The website splits the areas off to separate sites that deal w/ Alaska, The Gulf and The Atlantic, I think…
They all present info in different ways.
Steve the oil companies paid good money for the right to drill they had their geologist do a survey before the parcels went up for bid. now we have to assume ( I know this term makes an ass out of you and me However) they know their business. a fact that can be determined by Exxon Mobile profits going up over 400% when the cost of their feedstock goes from $30.00 T0 $140.00 a barrel. look if you took all the money that Bush and company gave to the oil companies in government welfare and what they have given to the RNC and McSame you could lower the price of a gallon of gas by 50 cents. Remember gasoline cost 25 cents a gallon in Venezuela and 40cents a gallon in Saudi Arabia. the reason for these prices is because these countries believe that their natural resources belong to their citizens. unlike in this country where we sell ours to private company’s and then give them tax breaks to make up for what they paid US .Drivers in the southern part of California drive to Mexico to save $2.00 a gallon.
Truth Teller!
keep ON tellin’ it.
“Remember gasoline cost 25 cents a gallon in Venezuela and 40cents a gallon in Saudi Arabia. the reason for these prices is because these countries believe that their natural resources belong to their citizens”
You’re kidding right? Salaries in Venszuela are so low that most citizens can’t afford a car much less the gas to drive it, even if gas IS $0.40 USD / gal. The same is true to a lesser extent in Saudi Arabia.