No one is trying to silence right-wing fearmongers -- but it is time to stand up to them
By David Neiwert Monday Apr 06, 2009 8:30am
You have to wonder if right-wingers will ever get it: Difference isn't a threat.
They were mewling like wounded hyenas this weekend after some of us pointed out that there was a direct connection between the irresponsible fearmongering in which they've been indulging since Barack Obama was elected and Saturday's tragedy in Pittsburgh.
Michelle Malkin, for example, whined to her cultlike audience that liberals were being mean to them: "You killed these police officers. It’s all your fault." As Oliver notes, the Instawanker has been thrashing about angrily too.
My favorite, though, was Neil Sheppard at Newsbusters:
Let's be clear what these attacks on folks like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all about -- the left-wing in our nation want to silence ALL opposing voices in the media, and they will do it using all tools at their disposal INCLUDING blaming journalists and political commentators for the criminal behavior of others.
This is a familiar refrain that comes up every time anyone raises a socially damning issue like this one: We're trying to oppress them, to silence their voices, by pointing out how morally and ethically bankrupt they are.
Actually, we're just pointing out how bankrupt they are. No one here has said anything about silencing their voices -- we just want them to face up to the consequences of their irresponsible rhetoric. It's called culpability: They obviously are not criminally culpable, nor likely even civilly culpable. But they are morally and ethically culpable.
We do have serious differences of opinion here. We strongly believe that there's a clear, common-sense connection between the paranoiac fearmongering that has passed for right-wing rhetoric since well before Obama's election (and has become acute since) and violence like that in Pittsburgh, or in Knoxville: horrifying tragedies, in which the sources of the criminal's unambiguous motives are that very same hysterical fearmongering -- whether it's about the evil socialists, stinking immigrants, or conspiring gun-grabbers who've taken over the country since Election Day.
And yes, Glenn Beck deserves some mention here. As the video above demonstrates, his fearmongering on the gun issue is noteworthy in itself. I'm sure we all remember the time he speculated that these shooters were just ordinary citizens frustrated by "the system" and "political correctness." Or more recently, when he sneered at Missouri law-enforcement efforts to distribute intelligence about right-wing extremists:
Beck: Let's put this into perspective here: Our researchers couldn't find a single report of a single death specifically linked to a militia group, or an individual member of a militia, in over a decade. Yet an average of more than 150 officers die every year nationwide. Have you counted the number of dead police officers in Philadelphia? And militia numbers are reportedly down after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 -- seems it gave them a bad name. So why are militias getting so much attention from Missouri?
The point is not to silence the people saying these things, but to point out how grotesquely irresponsible they are -- in the hopes that they will cease doing so, and start acting responsibly. It's their choice to use irresponsible rhetoric. It's not just our choice but our duty, as responsible citizens, to stand up and speak out about it.
And make no mistake: Rhetoric that whips up irrational fears among the public, that demonizes and dehumanizes and scapegoats -- that's irresponsible rhetoric. And we are calling the American Right on it.
Charles W. Blow had a prescient column about this in the New York Times the day before the shooting:
All this talk of revolution is revolting, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed.
As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh. (We sometimes forget that not all dangerous men are trained by Al Qaeda.)
At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.
Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling.
That's especially the case when you figure the role of right-wing extremists into this situation -- people like Richard Poplawski:
Richard Andrew Poplawski was a young man convinced the nation was secretly controlled by a cabal that would eradicate freedom of speech, take away his guns and use the military to enslave the citizenry.
His online profile suggests someone at once lonely and seething. He wrote of burning the backs of both of his hands, the first time with a cigarette, the second time for symmetry. He subscribed to conspiracy theories and, by January 2007, was posting photographs of his tattoos on white supremacist Web site Stormfront. Among his ambitions: "to accumulate enough 'I punched that [expletive] so hard' stories to match my old man."
Mr. Poplawski's view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.
"We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty," said Mr. Perkovic, who lives in Lawrenceville. "One of his concerns was why were these major events in America not being reported to the public."
... Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.
Around the same time, he joined Florida-based Stormfront, which has long been a clearinghouse Web site for far-right groups. He posted photographs of his tattoo, an eagle spread across his chest.
"I was considering gettin' life runes on the outside of my calfs," he wrote. Life runes are a common symbol among white supremacists, notably followers of The National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group linked to an array of violent organizations.
Because we believe in freedom of speech and freedom of thought, there will probably always be haters like Richard Poplawski among us. Inevitably they will be driven by fear: the fear of difference. Because to them, difference of any kind is a threat.
And what we know from experience about volatile, unstable actors like them is that they can be readily induced into violent action by hateful rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes other people. And thanks to human nature and those same freedoms, we will certainly always have fearmongering demagogues among us. But the purveyors of such profoundly irresponsible rhetoric need to be called on it -- especially when they hold the nation's media megaphones.
As Bill Clinton put it, after Oklahoma City:
In this country we cherish and guard the right of free speech. We know we love it when we put up with people saying things we absolutely deplore. And we must always be willing to defend their right to say things we deplore to the ultimate degree. But we 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.
Of course, the right-wingers mewled piteously after Clinton gave that speech, too. They claimed he was trying to silence them, when in fact he was quite explicit about not doing that. Nonetheless, it became part of established right-wing lore that "Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for Oklahoma City."
It's classic projection, of course -- because when they attack liberals, especially in the very personal way they favor, they are trying to silence them.
They won't be able to keep getting away with that ruse forever. Because we're not trying to silence them. We're standing up to them. We're not threatening them -- we're simply engaging in our own right of free speech, just like them.
They simply don't want to have to deal with the substance of what we're saying. They don't want to face up to the very real culpability for which they are being called out.
Login or Register to post comments.
Don't they claim people will copy drug and sex scenes from the movies?
I wish...
They are the first to try and blame crime and violence in society on the content of movies or music, but when there is a shooter whose whole library consists of the Tomes of Bill O'Reilly, and Jonah Goldberg, that contain lists of America's "true enemies" which the shooter claims he would kill if he could, but has to settle on a liberal church instead, well, they just can't seem to see any connection whatsoever.
...suicide in song lyrics.
Comic books
Dungeons & Dragons and other role-playing games like Vampire: The Masquerade.
But what about wrasslin?
Concidering some of the moronic gearheads I've seen out on the road, you might wanna throw NASCAR into the mix too.
This IS NOT about the 1st amendment. These people ARE CRIMINALLY CULPABLE!!
If this were Rwanda or Bosnia and there were people on the radio mobilizing people to kill their neighbors or hack people to death C&L would be the FIRST to condemn the HATEMONGERS as CRIMINALS!
If there were people on a street corner egging someone on to beat someone to death, those people would be charged with accessory to a crime, if not worse.
This is the same shit. It is NOT 1st amendment. Hannity et al are baiting domestic terrorists.
There has been plenty of blood spilled thanks to the right wing in this country. We should set up a Gitmo to protect America from these would be conservative terrorists.
The right wing can't govern so all they have is fear and smear to appeal to their ignorant paranoid base in an effort to try to cling to power. Thinking America is wise to this, that's why a clear majority did not fall for this con game to try to get them to vote against their own best interests. The right wing nuts on the other hand may instead launch into a terrorist attack against Americans because of Beck and his ilk. Beck needs to be held accoutable for the deaths of innocent Americans he helps cause. He's just as big a terrorist as the perpetrators themselves. Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, the gun nut shooters...Beck might has well have pulled the trigger and planted the bombs...not that he cares, he get s a fat paycheck for peddling terror. Free speech ends a yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Beck needs to be held accountable for those Americans who are killed and injured because of his inciting of the wingnut base for his ratings and profit.
One of the things crybaby Beck has spewed about is a conspiracy to set up "re-education camps" in this country.
... that some of these people were properly educated in the first place.
Stat!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentar...
Beginning of OpEd:
Opinion
Liberals & Limbaugh
April 5, 2009
Last week in these pages, Andrew Klavan, a conservative who writes for the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, addressed himself to liberals, insisting that "whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh."
He concluded with a proposal: "I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. ... Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?"
We asked four local liberals to take that challenge, and one fallacy in Klavan's argument quickly became clear: They all had already listened extensively to Limbaugh.
Here's what they concluded from the experience:
That was a damn good article.
I think the first one though, was a bit too philosophical regarding el rashbo.
Yeah, that was a fine article.
Last week, I heard Limbaugh talking about some article that claims that people who get tattoos have low self esteem.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of Limbaugh reading that article was, but I've read that people who are grossly overweight, as Limbaugh is, have low self-esteem. (All due respect to overweight people....I'm overweight myself).
So I read with amusement when the last comment in that article said this: "I suspect that the only human he loathes more than "feminazis" and "limousine liberals" is himself.
How true, how true. Limpballs constantly calls people names; he constantly demeans and debases them; he constantly is yelling and screaming at people with whom he disagrees. That man must have some sort of inferiority complex and low self-esteem.
I have 5 tattoos, I'm overweight, AND bald. And my self-esteem is doin just fine.
is a terrible thing to waste!
Limbaugh exhibits CLASSIC self-loathing behavior. In fact, he's taken it to such a degree that if he EVER comes off his high horse, he'll probably hit the bottle, guzzle the oxy, and sink his way into the sunset.
One can only hope.
Yes, they have the right to free speech, as we all do, but they need to be mindful of what they're saying. And to whom they are saying it. Seems to me, the guilt is starting to get to them. That is, if they even feel guilt...
They don't want to accept responsibility for their hateful words. Folks listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck like its the gospel truth.
There will be at least 1 or 2 more mass shootings before the month is through.....esp. since 4/20 is fast approaching. I hope the Feds are on the case.
it's fear of being charged with a crime.
Yeah...I forgot about 4/20...Hitlers B-day right?
I'm so sorry! We will now take all the guns away from people who want to use them. Then, not only will the Police have an easier time dealing with the public at large but they won't feel threatened anymore about getting killed.
Um, Michelle? I know you're delusional most of the time. Maybe you can't help that or don't want to do anything about it but, I WAS NOT THERE! I did not want anyone to get shot or killed especially a Police Officer let alone more than one and that doesn't mean I would've rather have seen the guy's Mother dead on arrival either. This man adapted a totally unacceptable philosophy in our Law Abiding society and he shot and killed Police Officers. I had nothing to do with it and I don't want to see people lose their guns. Although, I still want to know from you and other like you: What regulated militia did this guy belong to? Tell me that, won't you?
Someone else should get credit for sayin' this (someone who posts on this blog): Maybe if someone starts talking about having their guns taken away, maybe its time we did!
Just wanted to thank you for the attribution and link to my blog posted on your original Poplawski post. Pretty sure I was the first to find his friend Perkovic's Myspace page and Poplawski's stormfront pose. I'm no big sleuth. I just have some search software and decided to try it. If their last names were Smith and Jones, I wouldn't have bothered.
I think some of your readers are over-playing the ideology angle. The "Sean Hannity told him to do it" types. A Troll Report reader said it best, I think:
"The twisted intersection of stupidity, ammunition, and personal failure".
Those three things had more to do with this than Sean Hannity.
You forgot fear.
But Hannity and all like him, help push them over the edge.
We're beginning to see the fruits of their labor.
to all the free speech their money can buy.
Free speech gives an INDIVIDUAL the right to stand on a soapbox on a streetcorner and espouse their political views. It does NOT give megacorporations the ability to propagandize over the national airwaves 24 hours a day, 7 days a week under the guise of a "news" channel.
That is fascism.
No one is forcing you to listen to it.
I mean, seriously, it just zipped right over your head didn't it?
The point was that megacorps don't have the freedom of speech, which is ridiculous.
My point was that despite all the mega millions they spend disseminating their opinions, it's all for naught if no one listens.
something, if I'm not mistaken, was somethin that conservatives changed in order to benefit their campaign contributors.
Well of course, if no one listened, but the sad reality is, that millions of people DO, in fact, listen. And take it as news, as fact. Which, we know is not the case.
That, wheyghey, is THE point.
I believe corporations were "fictious" individuals since Adam Smith.
They way they could sue and be sued as a corporation.
Otherwise we'd have to find the individual responsible.
And analysis and reform of corporate law is critical to our well being!
There are those who note that corporations are given their extra-legal status by the state for a public purpose for which they are not being held accountable AND SHOULD BE.
We have corporate and governmental actors hiding behind the stone wall of anonymity continually constructed, reconstructed and enlarged for their organizational syndicates by their legal functions which accrete, swarm (thank you, Foucault) and leverage more anonymity and advantage, allowing those corporate and governmental actors to behave without the same accountability which the rest of us must and should accept.
This is old timey Supreme Court lovliness from the 19th century, corporations as persons. I don't think it had to do at all with "conservative" campaign contributions. Just greedy railroad companies.
So since millions of people listen, and you don't like that, what do you propose to do about it? Censor their speech?
What about blogs? Some are read by millions and call themselves news blogs, but they also give their opinion of the news. Should we censor them too?
A headnote.
Not included as part of the court decision:
"In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way.
However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are persons.
Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself, in a stunning display of either laziness (not reading the actual case) or deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion or having open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new doctrine of corporate personhood became the law."
was simply the result of the US courts following the precedent set by the UK in its Companies Act of 1862.
The primary purpose of corporations is to separate ownership from liability (other than as to the amount invested in the corporation). Corporate personhood is an essential element in the modern economic and legal systems.
The real debate should be on corporate governance issues to make it easier for owners to control the actions of managers.
If they are inciting people to violence, then FUCK yes, censor their asses!
Blogs are not one individual hammering one opinion through the thick skulls of the listeners.
The main difference wheyghey, is that rush and his ilk, don't give others the chance for rebuttal, or if they do, they make sure they come on out on top and making the dissenter look weak and foolish.
Most blogs I've had experience with, are nothing like that.
Can you give me an example of one of these megacorporations inciting violence?
I was referring to the actual individuals incitement of violence.
But again, the sponsors who give the programs funding who say these incendiary things, could have SOME degree of culpability.
Murdoch's empire
:)
was NY Post's 'cartoon' of 2 white cops shooting a chimp labeled Obama.
;D
Inciters: G.E., Disney, Viacom, Newscorp, Tribune Corp., et al.
Fiver.
Thanks!
Well, if you can't defend the commentators in question then by all means, switch the target to the "mega-corporation".
legal justification for censorship. At least in theory, free speech is such a fundamental right that it should only be curtailed by government action in the clearest of cases.
"Let's kill all the (insert ethnic slur here)" - criminal act.
"The (another ethnic slur) are all part of a conspiracy to take away our jobs/guns/whatever" - odious, but not criminal.
Yeah, it was supposed to stop states from denying rights of "persons" but much of the case law that followed stopped states from regulating corporations because "they" were "persons."
is constructed around electrical voice and picture emitters of one kind or another, how would it be possible not to 'listen' or at least 'hear' the ever-constant din of crap they spew??!!
stringing subjective opinions in a constant drone with a banner underneath that reads "NEWS" is fraudulent.
But, people like Klavan dare people to listen, and he believes that if you listen, you will convert.
People like BillO the Clown criticize people who criticize him because, he claims, they just get their talking points from left wing blogs....he claims people who criticize him do not watch his show.
That's one reason I do watch his show so that when I send him emails, criticizing him, he cannot tell me that I don't watch him. He cannot tell me that I "take things out of context."
The truth is, even if all of us stop watching and listening to this right wing nonsense, there will be right wingers out there who do listen to the nonsense, and they will try to spread their crap to neighbors and friends. Some people listen to this right wing crap in order to fight it!
Free speech does not give anyone, individual or otherwise, the right to incite violence.
As someone down thread mentioned...THAT, is terrorism.
.
Free speech gives people the right to say, write or record outrageous statements that can have the effect of inciting violence. It does not give the right to directly and unambiguously encourage violence against an identifiable person or persons.
You do not want the government censoring the views of those who disagree with the administration on the grounds that disagreement "incites violence".
That's why non-governmental action is appropriate. Boycotting sponsors, publicly accusing the other side's ideologues of fosting hate and other tactics are permissible to shut some of your cultural opponents down.
According to the Supreme Court, free speech is protected, but not lies intended to "create trouble". If there's a fire in a crowded theater, one is protected by the free speech provisions if s/he yells "Fire!". If there's no fire in a crowded theater, one is NOT protected by the free speech provisions if s/he yells "Fire" for the purpose of creating a panic.
So there are at least two important pivots for declaring that free speech protections apply. Said simply, the first is related to circumstances -- whether the claim is true. If a claim is true, regardless of the outcome, then the speaker is protected.
The second is the nature of the claim -- the speaker believes that his claim is NOT true but makes the claim anyway with malicious intent, a false claim that would encourage "evils" that Congress has addressed in its concerns, evils that pose a "clear and present danger" to others.
I suppose a third pivot could be what comprises a "clear and present danger".
I suspect that this framework for determining free speech latitude could be refined by future courts. Somebody's intention is very hard to prove, though a lie is not hard to prove. Whether someone KNOWS his/her claim is a lie is another fuzzy area. And "the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" is also rather amorphous.
Maybe we should start with the lies propounded by rightwing hate-mongering. They are often announced as opinionated conclusions after a string of "reasons" or quotes are posed -- with much of the truth omitted. Omitting the truth is also a lie, a big one.
Anyway, I'd like to see the legal profession tackle fear- and hate-mongering vis a vis free speech and come up with a theoretical framework to get it off American "airwaves".
No-one's falling for their bullshit anymore, except the twenty percenters. This is not the path back to power. Thx for playing Michelle.
Stop giving them any attention and they become an echo chamber. Conclude that vigilance against them is the right path, and you give them power.
of the popluation can do some serious damage, both physically and politically, with enough guns and money.
Free speech gives these exremist loons the right to preach their views. But it's a two way street. It also gives us the right to rebut them and their ideas. Hiding your head in the sand is no answer.
Bush's popularity may still be at 23% or so, but 47% of the country voted McCain/Palin after one of the most divisive electoral campaigns in recent decades.
The number of people who are influenced by extremist right wing talking points is probably over 50%. In addition to ditto heads watching Rush, Hannity and Beck et al and believing every word, there are also those who believe what their friends tell them and those who believe just a part of what the extremists are trumpeting. Limbaugh and his ilk are routes by which disinformation permeates the debate and spreads misleading memes. (FDR made the Great Depression worse, for example).
Ignoring them just allows the disinformation to go unchallenged.
...this level of violence...hatebaiting is strictly a Conservative phenomenon. Beck, Dobbs, O'Reilly and the other fearmongers are scaring angry people who can't handle losing their jobs, homes, health care, etc. blaming immigrants, the new President and Wall St for all of their problems.
To be fair, Mike Malloy doesn't inspire ANY level of violence.
.
Yes, these guys do incite violence and hatred, and it is a conservative/Republican phenomenon.
The thing is, these right wingers claim the same about the "left wing smear machine." They claim that their side does not call names, incite hatred, etc.
The thing about this claim is that people like BillO and Insannity constantly talk about how Faux News is killing their competition of MSNBC and CNN. If the likes of MSNBC are so insigificant in the eyes of BillO, then why are they such a threat to him?
... hold Mr. Poplawski responsible for his actions, we choose what we read and listen and watch to either inform/educate, or to validate views which we already hold.
To which end, Sean 'Fighting Tyrrany' Hannity, Glenn 'Got 'em Surrounded' Beck, Chuck 'Guns, Guns, Guns!' Norris, and Rep. Michele 'Dollar Daze' Bachmann are all culpable for stoking the fires.
And it's not like they're not aware of this - whether they're professional bloviators or politicians, their careers and livelihoods depend on their choice of words, to praise or condemn, to persuade or discourage, and - so they claim - to uphold treasured American values.
It's not 'just talk.' It's a sickness, no less damning than a cancer upon our collective souls.
Excellent post and points about free speech.
In a very odd kind of way, the right-wing fear mongers are similar to preachers, and by that I mean that they tap into the hopes, self-centeredness, and fears of people in order to convince them of a "framework" that will save them. From what, I'm not sure. Life's difficulties come to us all, churchy, right-wing, left-wing, whatever ism that may attract us.
I'm less-disgusted with religion than right-wing fear mongers though. I don't get agitated that fundamentalists teach what they teach as long as they don't try to cram it down anybody's throat.
But fear-mongering is hate-mongering, and I have very strong negative feelings about hate-mongering, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. I, personally, would like to see the hate-mongering silenced. It comes closer to the proverbial yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater than free speech.
Free speech that does not encourage harm against innocent others is both urgently critical and inconsequential at the same time. It's critical that we have that freedom of expression, and if we voice opinions that are nuts but don't encourage unlawful violence toward others, it's inconsequential in many ways.
People always have a choice about whether to heed the nutty ideas of others (religion, politics, birdwatching, whatever) or not. OTOH, people who are the victims of violence encouraged by and even conceived as a result of fear-mongering and hate-mongering have no choice about it at all.
There is some line in my mind between free speech and fear/hate-mongering, too fuzzy now to clearly conceptualize, but terribly different in effect.
For now, all we can do is demand that the fear/hate mongers themselves accept responsibility for their actions and not be blackmailed into silence ourselves by their claims of "free speech".
Your comment: "I'm less disgusted with religion than right-wing fear mongers though."
My response: Religions destroy critical thinking skills. The lack of critical thinking is the reason that people buy into fear mongering.
I'm not sure I'd agree that religion destroys critical thinking skills -- I think it teaches people to suppress or repress certain portions of reality and apply whatever critical thinking skills are left to a small slice of life, while they live in terror of the repressed parts, which are "wrong" in their book. I've known too many people who have left fundamentalist religions for a much wider and richer world to believe people lose all their marbles just because they were raised to be very religious.
But I will say to the extent that repression and suppression of natural life-impulses do create fear (should they be loosed), then those in this "fix" often buy into fear-mongering. Because they're already afraid.
I just have more negative feelings against fear/hate-mongering than I do against religion, at least passive religion.
I'm religerous.
Sad to say but these shootings are the best thing that can happen for the GOP right now. Obama is on a roll, the markets and housing are turning in the right direction while Republicans are still enjoying low ratings.
What better way to try to sidetrack the progress than to turn the attention to a politically unpopular subject like gun control?
Believe me, Republicans are all for gun control right now.
Calling Batshit Crazy Fearmongers Batshit Crazy Fearmongers is "being mean to them"?
It's all in HOW you say it. ;)
you're supposed to say MISTER Or MS. Batshit Crazy
and say it with an snobby, English aristocratic type accent...
Oh wait...we're supposed to be nice to them now? Right?
[Deleted. You've been around long enough to know we don't allow this kind of post here. Do NOT do it again-Sitemonitor]
You are disgusting.
Eliminationalists like to classify people in prison as not human and thus deserving to be raped.
[Next time, flag the comment, do not respond. We'll deal with it-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. You may come back and post on Friday. These two posts are abohorrent-Sitemonitor]
Yes you still are disgusting.
Either you are saying that everybody in prison deserves to be raped (which is a favorite right-wing yucks topic), or you are in favor of vigilantes taking punishment into their own hands and punishing someone and that rape is a good form of punishment (another thing the right-wing favors). (I've heard that prison vigilantes often deal harshly with child molesters).
How would you like it if someone was able to, over a period of months, sneek child porn into your computer and then turned you in, and you wind up in prison.
Would you deserve to be attacked by the other prisoners?
No one deserves to be raped. And the comment about the size of of Poplawski's member...well...maybe that reflects a certain amount of latentism in you, Slappy.
It’s people like this who promote craziness
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/6/717062...
Every week we are seeing more and more people flipping out because of reckless comments from these types of people.
When are we going to have a discussion on that?
more and more often these days.
The right wing only wants GOP lapdogs to have guns so they can attack and kill liberals.
They don't want liberals to be in a position to defend themselves, either legally, verbally or with arms. It would best serve the interest of the GOP if they can have the liberals cower in fear, then enact gun control in such a way that primarily those who support the GOP with have the rights to have guns.
I suspect that the only reason Cheney, Bush, and their cronies didn't attempt a coup is because they were afraid of an uprising of the people. Make no mistake, if the right wing gets its hands on the reigns again, they'll make an attempt and stealing control forever.
when you are wrong and you are being proved wrong every day, and the
eight30-year free lunch of "conservatism" is coming to an end and you're looking at life options of "Can I SuperSize that?," "paper or plastic?" or "is 1% milk OK in that?"These people love to say that the left is the only group that hates, calls names, make threats, etc., etc....and that the left cannot stand dissent.
These right wing haters are loud, they are vocal, and the are large in number.
I'm so sick of hearing this crap from them.
It is scary that gun sales have apparently increased dramatically since Obama won the election.
By the way, I get 404 Error on that video with Wayne LaPierre in it.
Thanks, fixed it.
I bother to cling to the last crumb that there is even hope for this country at this point.
... the absence of hope is despair. It is the bread-and-butter of the right-wing fear mongers.
Despite their protestations that they're fighting for America, that they're the true patriots, the real Christians ... the vocal minority on the right are anything but. They're a bunch of scared little babies, afraid that they'll have to change.
Hope, on the other hand - hope is the agent of change. Give up hope, and you can kiss change goodbye.
Republicans are in a sad state of denial. I was at a regional theme park over the weekend and there was a girl in front of me with a shirt that read: "I'm not part of the problem. I'm a republican."
Holy Smokey Moses... we need to get these people into group therapy and fast.
The whole deathless and faceless Corporate machine, which has no soul or human emotions is totally out of control.
Look, face it, it may make us look like we are trying to silence the right wing nuts ... But people have been murdered now because Fox News, AM radio and conservative commentators are suffering BIG TIME from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
They are intentionally ginning up hatred and violence by LYING about Obama and Dems.
Yeah, they need to be SILENCED. Called-out. Shamed. HELD RESPONSIBLE.
Once they can have responsible discourse that does not call for taking up arms and KILLING people with opposing views, then we can get back to a 2-sided debate.
This is TERRORISM.
That's exactly what it is.
Actually, by point out how full of nonsense they are, one of the likely outcomes is to get them to silence themselves on an issue. That's usually how it works in a discussion between reasonable people goes: if you point out that someone is wrong then they usually don't continue to repeat what was shown to be wrong. However, since we're not dealing with reasonable people ...
Trantorian was right in the earlier post--free speech and msm propaganda are not one in the same. free speech does not mean we are guaranteed a right to host our own cable news-ertainment jerk-off show.
that said, pointing out the fallacy/idiocy, or mocking/insulting the main rightwing voices in this country is not an affront to free speech. on the contrary, it is OUR right to free speech to use our voices to attempt to make sure that the govt-corp's propaganda isn't the only source of information for the populace.
it is our duty to use our voices to counter the ruling class' message.
that the 'mainstream media' nonsense is the right-wing's pet rock.
The MSM does not exist. It's a myth, a bullying tactic that continues to work every single time someone buys into it, whether they're on the right or the left. It presumes that media coverage is flawed, so a correction is made out of fear.
Should we be surprised that the right-wing has used fear to bamboozle the media and continues to do so?
if you were right.
the news media has systemic problems and flaws.
yes, the rightwing coined 'the msm'... fine, i'll use a different name for it. like, say, corporate media. establishment media. or how about mouthpiece of the ruling class? take your pick.
the vast bulk of media (movies, TV, radio, magazines, internet) in the country is controlled by 6 corporations. and that is no myth.
to discount and deny this is to tacitly accept it. and that is not helpful
Actually the MSM DOES exist.
The reichwing coined the term "liberal media (press)."
And it was pointed out that there is a mainstream media, its the 'liberal press' that is the myth. So I have to wonder what Shadowgm is talking about.
Look, Limbaugh even described the tactic when expounding on how the blacks/minorities push the racism meme and exploit victimhood. And that was covered here on C&L.
The concept of the 'MSM' is most often pushed to discount the 'liberal media bias' (which we also recognize as a boogeyman) and to promote the mistaken belief that the bankrupt ideologies of the right are 'valid' and deserve airtime.
It is entirely directed at shaping the concept of 'fair and balanced.' If this were about math, we'd be told that 2+2=4 is 'mainstream math,' and that 2+3=4 was the truth, but there was some kind of liberal conspiracy to keep 'the truth' from us.
While you're busy pissing and moaning about a non-existant construct, the fact remains that the right-wing talking heads have a clear and open field for spouting their garbage. This is the same nonsense that the Democrats neutered themselves with on topics ranging from torture, to domestic wiretaps, to Iraq.
Perpetuating the myth of the mainstream media implies that there are views which are MORE valid - and we know whose views those are when we hear the right whining about the MSM. Accepting that definition means you undercut yourself in any discussion as to whether an idea is right or wrong. It's Cult Indoctrination 101 - it's not just framing issues, it's framing how you respond to them.
Corporate ownership of the media is an entirely different problem. It is closely intertwined with the MSM mythology, but with the added dimension of needing to control distribution as well as content.
I am, of course, an employee of one of those corporations and have worked in television news for 22 years.
But somehow, I missed out on the bags of cash being handed out by Sumner Redstone, Mel Karmazin, and Rupert Murdoch. Hell, George Soros won't even return my calls anymore. Bob Schieffer took me off his Christmas Card list.
Waaaaah.
There isn't a recognized group a media outlets (network news, the 24 hour cable news networks and prominent national papers) that represents for the most part establishment interests? That provides as its main fare non-contextual information and shallow garbage dressed up as 'news'?
... this 'establishment interest' concept is promulgated? Does Les Moonves call the news director at every CBS station across the country? Then, those news directors spread the word to every producer, writer, and editor in the house, across an entire broadcast day?
You're presupposing a level of editorial control that simply doesn't exist.
The problem of 'shallow garbage' is driven by America's short attention span. Non-contextual information is driven, in large part, by the self-appointed demons of 'immediacy.' The industry is also plagued by consultants - we've had everything from 'flying maps,' 'no tripods,' 'natural sound,' and 'live! live! live!' pushed as the way to win a bigger ratings/share.
You want more from your media? Demand more. Write your local news station, criticize them for inaccuracy or slant. When Rush Limbaugh rips off with a homophobic or racist comment, file a complaint with the FCC.
The Pentagon issues talking points to a bunch of "retired" generals. Yes, they are retired, but they take their talking points straight from Donald Rumsfeld in meetings at the Pentagon.
Oh, they are also on the payroll of various defense contractors who stand to make a fortune off the upcoming war.
The "retired" generals then appear on every news network. Their employment with defense contractors is not mentioned nor are their meetings with the Sec. Def. They are presented as "neutral" analysts who just happen to agree that Saddam Hussein is a dire threat which must be quickly neutralized or our children will be gassed or nuked in our sleep.
Or this one: Dick Cheney leaks a BS story about WMD which the New York Times dutifully and anonymously prints as requested. Dick Cheney then appears on Meet the Press where he refers to the Times story as confirmation of the administrations most dire warnings.
The "retired" generals' story.
Dick's effortless manipulation of the Times and MTP story.
Analyst = We're Too Lazy To Think
Or, what we call in the business, 'The blind leading the stupid.'
... this was the result of "laziness" or "stupidity"? C'mon.
Others might call it a military PSYOP directed at our own country with the full cooperation of corporate media. A very successful PSYOP.
The thing with a magic trick is it doesn't always rely on an expert magician.
Sometimes, it's enough to have an audience mired in their own expectations.
The Cheney/NYT thing, for example, is accepted practice - the 'senior administration official' who goes unnamed. The laziness comes in when people simply accept Cheney's reference to the NYT and don't go any further.
I mean, only now, we're getting around to understanding that Abu Zippity-Doo-Dah gave us ZERO intel on terrorist operations. I've been questioning that for years.
The corporate owners have financial interests. The people who work for them understand this. The tight control of a small group of corporation over nearly all the media greatly reduces the options of those who choose to buck the system. It needn't be overt, or even a conscious thing. It just happens cause the system as its currently set up produces it automatically.
People in the industry who make the owners happy do better than those who bite their owners' hand.
And even if it is the public's fault that doesn't negate that there is a mainstream media that doesn't provide the service it exists to provide to the population.
I think the mistake you're making is in listening to Rush. I don't but taking what you said I'm absolutely sure it is in Rush's interest to conflate the myth of the 'liberal media' with the 'mainstream media'.
See, when Rush talks about the MSM he means the 'liberal media'. When I talk about the MSM I'm talking about just that, the mainstream group of media outlets that for whatever reasons you want to think, provides almost no contextual reporting of depth.
By the way, if you don't think there is promulgation from the top down I point you to the media's performance during the run up to the Iraq war.
I was calling out the myth of the MSM long before Rush provided a specific example.
But, here we are, debating whether there's a bias in the media and following EXACTLY where Rush and idiots like Bernie Goldberg want you to go.
That has NOTHING to do with corporate ownership or the monkey dance television news goes through to justify its budget.
...where you were quoting Rush. I'm not debating bias. I'm saying there is an MSM and you're saying there isn't. Once you accept that there is a mainstream media, THEN we can discuss whether its biased or not, and if it is, what direction that bias leans.
Again I think the mistake you're making, especially in the context of bringing up Rush and Bernie, is in thinking that when I or others here refer to the MSM, we're referring to the myth of the liberal press, and I'm not.
There IS a top tier of media outlets. That is undeniable. The point is not that they all march to the tune of the same drummer, it is that regardless of the bias each individual outlet may or may not have, nonetheless as a group, none of them are providing in-depth contextual data or focusing on serious issues. The point is if you get all your info from this group of mainstream news outlets, you'll be, generally speaking, uninformed.
So, what do you call it when a small group of corporations own the media outlets, and through a combination of profit-driven obsequieousness, consultant promulgation, and top-down efficiency of scale, they all put out shallow garbage masquereding as news to the disservice of the general public. I'd call it the corporate media.
I guess what you are saying is that the identification of "the mainstream media" allows a person (say, Rush Limbaugh) to declare something like, "90% of the things you hear on teevee are inaccurate, so listen to me." Well, what if 90% of the things you hear on teevee are inaccurate (due to the biases described above)? Or, if not inaccurate, at least shallow, not in context, and told with a positive spin toward the advertisers?
You are saying that claiming that the vast majority of media is deficient allows one to foist other myths on the public. But the vast majority of the media is deficient, and Limbaugh wouldn't be able to make that argument if the public weren't stupid enough to be watching American Idol in the first place.
Anyway.
The first time I saw a bumpersticker that said "Kill your television" I thought, "that's terrible. I like television." But I've come around.
so, it is "utter nonsense" that 6 corporations control the bulk of media? is that wrong? correct me please.
or is it utter nonsense the the rightwing coined 'msm'?
or is it utter nonsense that the media has systemic issues? or, you think the populace is being well served by the media? i certainly don't.
seriously, which is utter nonsense?
the corporate media has failed the country time and time again. take it personally, or don't, i don't give a fuck about you or your feelings. but it is not directed at you nor the journalists/reporters/editors that work their asses to do their best--it is directed at a commercial media reliant on ad revenue/commercialism, a media that slashes foreign correspondents, relies more on wire services, that moves away from hard news to opinionated news, etc. all in a quest to prove their $$ worth to the corporate entity that controls them. that is the problem.
... that you conflate/combine the right-wing tactic of the myth of the MSM and the issue of corporate ownership.
The drive for ratings/share as a means of revenue has been around much longer than this 'MSM' nonsense.
You're much closer to the mark when you bring up the topics of revenue, cuts to foreign bureaus, and reliance on limited sources - but, again, that's a long standing problem. There was one hurricane in the mid-90's, and all four major stations led with video that had come from CNN Newsource. The exact same shot. Ooops.
A Wikipedia entry about free speech:
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment. Wikipedia
Remember this phrase and burn it in your brain:
REBUTTAL IS NOT CENSORSHIP.
Exploding the GOP's 30 years of lies and fallacies isn't censorship. It is a patriotic duty and a moral imperative.
Let's see if these Nazis have the guts to take it as well as they dish it out. Let's see if they can debate without their classic five tactics -- lies, evasions, attacks, cherry-picking data and Straw Man gambits.
All bullies are cowards. They can dish it out when they're leading a jackbooted, truncheon-wielding 30-on-1 lynch mob, but in a fair fight, they just can't take it.
And no, they can't stand up to scrutiny, they can't take it when someone picks apart their argument.
And again, no they won't deviate from the tactics and strategies (which you laid out so well) that had until recently, served them well.
Now that attitudes and perceptions have shifted...their underhanded ways are being exposed to the light of day...and there, they will wither and die.
only has debates on his show with young, blue-eyed babes with long blond hair. He never has real debates with real, knowledgeable people...well, except the body language lady...!
Spot on. They've amped up the hysteria because people are finally calling "bullshit" on their propaganda.
And thanks for the phrase. I will use that at every opportunity. It's short and to the point.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."
Liberal and conservative aren't just differing sets of positions on various issues. They are at their heart different ways of seeing the world.
Liberals are neophiles, conservatives are neophobes. To be a conservative IS to see different things as threats. That's what being a conservative means.
FWIW, that's actually the undercurrent this post was driving at.
Was just riffing of the first line wondering if they'd ever get it. Obviously they won't If they did, they'd be liberals.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals can't see the forest through the trees
And the conservatives bulldoze the trees.
... I sometimes wonder if it's genetic.
Not genetic, just carefully taught.
of liberal and conservatives as I've ever heard.
Well there's also when liberals were young you could overhear them saying, "Oh wow man, look at all the colors, the colors!"
Whereas the conservative were all, "Oh damn man, look at all the colords, the colords!"
There may be a commonality among the crazies who go off and decide to kill lots of innocent people. Mr Poplawski's mom indicated that her son had been kicked out of the Marine Corps for assaulting a drill instructor. This should have been a clear warning that the boy was not right in the head.
That he did not have a psychiatric profile that precluded his ever owning a firearm is a little surprising. We do NOT need more anti-firearm laws; we need to begin stringently enforcing the existing statutes!
Even Obama stated during his campaign, we didn't need more anti-gun laws, we needed more anti-crazy laws.
You're right. We should institute a policy of monthly psychological screenings for all citizens. Those deemed "crazy" will be removed from society so that all "sane" people can live their lives in freedom and peace.
There goes right-wing radio!
I happened to think pineapple on pizza is crazy, but to each his own. On the other hand ,I don't think it's out of line to test if a person is mentally competent to own an ASSAULT WEAPON.
... a non-assault weapon?
Can you pepper spray with an assault weapon?
is delicious!
As for the testing of people who wish to purchase assault weapons...I think it's a damn fine idea.
Why is it that when the left criticizes the right, that's an attempt at censorship, but when the right criticizes the left, it's not?
These guys are crazy.
It's because the right is merely pointing out how liberal statements are always a threat to the American way of life, whereas conservative statements are CORRECT and patriotic.
If you disagree with that, then you are a liberal and you just made the conservatives' point.
but I wish they would STFU and the media wouldn't concentrate on many of these ignorant people so much...oh yeah...and I hope they fail.
I just had to show my ID to buy a lighter at K Mart.
What gives?
So kids can be taught when they're being manipulated...from either end of the political spectrum.
But if they're not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and thus cannot be legally silenced, then perhaps they can be answered with "Gullible!" or some other descriptive epithet. Then step back and listen to them make their rejoinder...if they can. But at least hear them out before lambasting them. Let them dig their own rhetorical graves, then help bury them with facts.
Good point nemo.
I had a teacher that taught us how to see through advertising and commercials in the 10th grade. How to recognize a bogus statistic and a claim that actually isn't a claim.
Important stuff. Like finance, they don't teach it in school.
We had Rhetoric as part of our high-school curriculum, and everyone had to take it.
We also need to step up instruction in critical thinking.
For that matter, I'd love to see a class in media criticism - not a 'soft' class on reviewing the latest episode of Dancing With The Stars, but on dissecting news/opinion from different outlets. Identifying key words and phrases, how to distinguish 'news' from 'opinion.'
but, at this point, I'd be jumping for joy if our schools could just get more kids to learn to read above a third -grade level and write, too!
uh... you could read to them to take up the slack. You could then foster an interest in reading. You could also stop letting the TV babysit your kids and stop buying them videogames. Kids are inert with their parents help.
you've not read some of my other posts about edumacation.
But, I don't have any kids, though I was a teacher and I was a volunteer Big Sister in the Big Brother/Big Sister organization for about 15 years, and I've spent an awful lot of time with nieces/nephews & grands, and the kidlets of friends and neighbors. And, I refuse to buy video anything as gifts - Auntie usually bestows books and clothes.
So, you're right, people who bring children into this world have the responsibility to be involved in all aspects of their lives - starting with ensuring they are well educated. That's why I think upgrading our educational system is key to a lot of what we need to change in this country. We need to teach folks how to be parents - maybe that will happen in the next century.
at the begining.. I felt they definitely had a defensive and frieghtened demeanor and tone.. as well they should.. I thought the point about not silencing them but pointing out their culpability was excellent..
There have been any number of posts indicating that these amoral bastids don't even really believe what they say.. it's just a media game to make money.. It's incredibly shameful and horrible and they should be apologizing to the families of the slain officers and to the communities and nation they destabilize for their 'gain'..
The conservatives are crying, "It's so unfair that your criticize us!"
Screw them. It's about time that the coddled pansies in the millionaire pundit class like Hannity and Beck learned that life isn't fair. Those of us that work for a living already know that.
They dominate the airwaves with right wing bullshit(90% of radio stations nationwide) making liberal talk the minority. Conservatives also turn disagreements into a question of patriotism, National safety, love of country, support for the troops, etc.
I've totally had enough of their bullshit.
I know there have always been crazy people around, but I believe after nine eleven when bush was saying we'll get him dead or alive and other tough talk, for a while there these sorts of folks were empowered by his words and bs. They flew their flags and adored their guns because they were part of America and we were gonna shoot all the terrorists here there and everywhere. Now I think they feel they have lost that power they felt then and they are angry. Sadly they are also dangerous.
My God. What is wrong with this woman Bachmann??? She is the queen of paranoid fearmongers in Congress...
http://minnesotaindependent.com/31237/bachman...
This is why I believe anyone running for office should have to take some sort of mental competency test. She is either insane or playing to the insane part of her party.
We get CRAP like resolutions on 'Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith' flying through the House, and flakes like 'Dollar Daze' Bachmann think there's some evil plot to indoctrinate our kids.
But, no, irresponsible blathering about 'Lordy, Geordy, grab yer guns, them feds is a-comin'!' from Hannity, Beck, and Chuckles the Ninja, that's just free speech.
Beck is a high school graduate who came up on morning zoo radio. How he controls the agenda in any arena outside of giving away free tickets to the 20th caller I have no idea.
That's our culture.
The problem with the right-wing fear mongers is they lie too much. There is no problem with them having a different point of view on life, but if they lie, are racist, sexist, etc. etc. they open themselves up to critizism and culpability. They deserve and need to be called out on everything.
There is a huge difference with what they right-winger fear mongers do and what the progressives do.
Login or Register to post comments.