Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop has always been a favorite of mine. Jeffrey has recently published Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy, which is a real eye-opener.

Jeffrey looked at Rush Limbaugh's recent crowings about "Operation Chaos" and looked at other instances where airwaves were used to foment violence:

During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, radio broadcasts called for direct acts of violence to be committed by one faction of the Rwandan public against another. These broadcasts drew considerable attention because (1) radio was the major source of information for the listeners in question, (2) the audience was largely non-literate, and (3) there was an ongoing nationalist struggle into which the broadcasts fed (emphasis mine):

In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the killing of Tutsi in a place called Bugesera, south of the national capital. On 3 March, the radio repeatedly broadcast a communiqué supposedly sent by a human rights group based in Nairobi warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi. Local officials built on the radio announcement to convince Hutu that they needed to protect themselves by attacking first. Led by soldiers from a nearby military base, Hutu civilians, members of the Interahamwe, a militia attached to the MRND party, and local Hutu civilians attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi (International Commission 1993: 13-14). (from "Hate Media in Rwanda")

The broadcasts in Rwanda, thus, were directly engaged using false reports as propaganda, the goal of which was to encourage listeners to commit acts of violence. The effort worked, and subsequent investigations linked the violent language to the actual deaths, thereby including the broadcasts within the framework of the genocidal action both legally and morally.

In stark contrast, Limbaugh's broadcasts were removed from encouraging direct acts of violence, focusing instead on creating the conditions for violence--what Limbaugh described as 'chaos.' In this transcript (Apr 23, 2008), Limbaugh explains how his broadcasts are intended to incite political violence. Notice how he describes creating conditions for violence rather than actual violence (emphasis mine):

This is about chaos. This is why it's called Operation Chaos! It's not called Operation Save Hillary. It's not called Operation Nominate Obama. It's called Operation Chaos! The dream end... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here. And there has been nothing that's happened on the battlefield for my vision of this to change just because Hillary won. We got what we wanted last night, and people want me to change course now? "We got what we wanted, okay, now time to support Obama." No. If Obama runs the table with the rest of these primaries, it's over, and the superdelegates are going to have a much easier choice choosing him, because he'll end up with a big lead. (from "Why It's Called Operation Chaos")

So the goal of the 'operation' for Limbaugh is not to encourage his listeners to commit acts of violence, but encourage his listeners to commit acts of politics that 'end' in Democrats committing acts of violence on each other.

Even though the violence is one step removed for Limbaugh in comparison to the 1990s broadcasts in Rwanda, Limbaugh clearly includes the eruption of political violence as an ideal goal of his rhetoric. Read on...

So the question falls to us: what can we do to not only reject this kind of violent framing, but to discourage it from continuing?

People For the American Way:

The Family Research Council is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians "are spouting God-talk" in order to "confuse people of faith" and hide their "true agenda." Invoking the Religious Right's recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency - as well as the "Swift Boat" campaign of 2004 - the so-called "Values Voters for Truth" campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals - and, obviously, Democratic candidates - as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to "deceive and split values voters." [..]

As an example of this supposed "fraud," the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his "belief in Christ" and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a "biblical call to feed the hungry" also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the "hypocrisy" of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely "lip service," part of a "campaign of deception" that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

FRC's tactic of trying to claim "values" and "faith" as Religious Right-only attributes is hardly new - it was the driving force behind the group's "Values Voter Summit" last year, organized before the elections to encourage a disillusioned base to turn out for Republicans. It is also the premise behind cries of "anti-Christian persecution," such as at the "War on Christians" conference, at FRC's "Justice Sunday" events (in which opposition to right-wing judicial nominees was presented as an attack on "people of faith"), and with "Patriot Pastor" political machines that warn of the "forces of darkness" trying to "deny America's Godly heritage."

Party Over Country, Over Self, Over Everything That's Holy
Fact-esque

Who's the most pathetic example of the most tragic and despicable Republican on Earth?
A) John McCain (see Shakespeare's Sister, who makes a good case) or
B) ColinPowell, who, refused to resign in protest over the rush to BushCo's Warin Iraq although he knew that the rationale for the war was built onlies...More

Recommended Reading The Heretik

[GARY HART] In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."
More

John McCain has picked Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate - which at least is interesting. But how is he going to justify attacking Obama on his inexperience now? Palin, if McCain wins, would be the VP to a 72 year old man with a medical history of four different cancer battles. The chances of her becoming President would, I have to say, be rather higher than those of Joe Biden. There's nothing at all in Palin's record to suggest she has the experience to run America or to be Commander in Chief.

She's not even sure what the VP does (h/t Kos)

In an interview just a month ago, she dissed the job, saying it didn’t seem “productive.”

... Larry Kudlow of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co.” asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.

Palin replied: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”

Continue reading »

It's no secret that the village elders love John McCain. Tweety actually got honest once and told us how much the media simply adores him and called them "McCain's base":

"Every time I look at a poll. And I expect McCain to win everyone of these polls. The press loves McCain. We’re his base I think sometimes.".–Chris Matthews. The Chris Matthews Show 09/09/06

Greenwald wrote about a short interview CNN aired between John King and St. McCain on The Straight Talk Express and was shocked because it was in my own words: "drivel" Why should we get any new information about McCain during his run for president, right? Isn't that what CNN is supposed to do? Was it out of line for Glenn to call for a little reporting by Mr. King? Apparently so. As is par for the course, many journalists have a hard time with criticism from the dirty f*&king hippies and King was no different.

From: King, John C

To: GGreenwald@salon.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:40 PM

Subject: excuse me?

I don't read biased uninformed drivel so I'm a little late to the game

But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings....read on

If you don't read drivel. Mr. King---maybe you could make sure we don't have to see it either, deal? Shorter version: Don't mess with my accessibility!

You see, it's Glenn's fault that CNN edited the very serious John King's piece down until it was useless drivel. How dare Greenwald not contact King and find out why it was such a useless piece of drivel. After all, he's a high caliber journalist with over twenty years of experience and would never willing offer up the kind of drivel that had been aired on The Situation Room that day. And he wonders why we complain....

Jane Hamsher's headline was pretty funny: John King: “If Loving John McCain Is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right!”

Memo to King: your beef should be with CNN, not Greenwald. In the meantime, instead of being St. McCain's lap dog, why not start practicing some, you know, actual journalism?