If your liberal friends are brazen enough to declare that not only do Fox News and Limbaugh and Hannity and Ingraham and Levin encourage "domestic terrorism" with their "militia-style" rants, but they also claim "media liberals don't traffic in irresponsible talk of murder and violence and terrorism," here's just a fraction from our Notable Quotables archives that ought to put a stop to it:
-- As a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats....this advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up! Good night and good luck." — MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in a "Special Comment" on Countdown, May 14, 2008.
-- "Good evening. A President who lied us into a war and, in so doing, needlessly killed 3,584 of our family and friends and neighbors." – Keith Olbermann on Countdown, July 2, 2007.
-- "I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact." – Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.
-- Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: "It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-"
Host Bill Maher: "You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-"
O’Rourke: "-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs...."
Maher: "You mean the OxyContin that he was on?...Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?" — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.
-- "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than al-Qaeda -- worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was." — MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy magazine, October 2007 issue.
-- Chris Matthews: "Do you think they’re guilty of war crimes?"
Michael Moore: "Absolutely....I think we need a trial, in this country, where Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would be brought up on charges for causing the deaths of so many people...." -- Exchange on Hardball, July 23, 2007.
-- It didn’t exactly represent a profile in courage for the Vice President to wander over there to the F-word network for a sit-down with Brit Hume. I mean, that’s a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde, ain’t it?...I mean, running over there to the Fox network to, I mean, that’s — talk about seeking a safe haven. He’s not going to get any high hard ones from anybody at the F-word network. I think we know that." — Jack Cafferty during the 4pm EST hour of CNN’s The Situation Room, February 15, 2006.
-- No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people, millions support your revolution, support your ideas, and we are expressing our solidarity with you." — Singer/activist Harry Belafonte to Venezuela’s left-wing President Hugo Chavez during a televised rally on January 8, 2006 in a clip shown the following day on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes.
-- No wonder Bush is intimidated. No wonder he can’t even walk down his driveway to speak with her. He is scared shitless. Whether he acknowledges it or not — whether his aides try to insulate him from the truth or not — his hands are covered in the blood of Cindy Sheehan’s son. They are dripping with the blood of all who have died there." – Actress Christine Lahti on The Huffington Post, August 11, 2005.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Unbelievable
June 12, 2009 - 08:20 ET by cvgbuckeyeAnd then there was that "harmless" little movie about President Bush being assassinated a while back. It simply goes on and on and on to infinity The left/MSM defense back then: "Well it's just a movie" Helen Keller could recognize the blatant hypocricy of these liars and yet it still appears that the majority of the American People cannot.
What in Hell is wrong with us and are we not going to awaken before it is to late?
Link
June 12, 2009 - 09:39 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere's a link to a Wikipedia article about that film. Just in case some leftist says 'Nah, that isn't true.'.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Perfect, Tim
June 12, 2009 - 08:25 ET by KC MulvilleThrow their own words back at them. Great!
Paul Krugman is the latest to weave together the violence of the last couple of days with the "climate of hate" coming from Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Except for Krugman in the New York Times, which speaks to the liberal elites, all of these "hate climate" pundits are trying to convince ordinary Americans that conservative rhetoric is responsible for inflaming nutcases. But ordinary Americans are not hardcore liberals, despite whatever conceit the liberals have. Ordinary Americans don't associate criticism of Obama with nutcase shootings, no matter how hard these liberals try to make their case.
If Olbermann and Maher
June 12, 2009 - 08:28 ET by HockeyKidIf Olbermann and Maher co-hosted a show and bored each other to death, would the lifesaving effect be exponential?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
With their egos...
June 12, 2009 - 08:48 ET by sam12663they wouldn't even be able to sit in the same room.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
i know a way to save 3000
June 12, 2009 - 11:41 ET by TruthMongeri know a way to save 3000 infants executed on a daily basis
Palin/Prejean 2012
They didn't really say that stuff...
June 12, 2009 - 08:45 ET by sam12663...but if they did, they "didn't mean it, and if they had the chance to do it again, they would probably say things differently". What a bunch of hypocrites. Liars lie, and we have a bunch of them in the MSM and government.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
Code Pink Worst
June 12, 2009 - 10:48 ET by slickwillie2001I have a link somewhere on my computer to a Code Pink demonstration where they parade a pink banner suggesting that US soldiers 'murder their officers'. This kind of stuff is not unusual from the loony lefties.
jessieH Sooner or
June 12, 2009 - 11:17 ET by jessieHjessieH Sooner or later, these idiots will be in the unemployment line with the rest of US. Then WE can ask them, face to face, about their comments.
Libtards don't believe in
June 12, 2009 - 11:17 ET by RR GOPLibtards don't believe in killing their enemies. They believe in torturing them with their name-calling and endless circular logic.
They want to get others to conform to their point of view, or at least to belittle, shame and finally silence their opposition.
Just killing a neo-con...where's the skillful intellect involved with that?
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
I don't know Tim...
June 12, 2009 - 13:54 ET by nicholas nicklebyFirst, Tim, I agree with your broad point, which I've said before: all people, of whatever political (religious, ethnic, etc.) leaning should keep a watch on their speech and feelings to make sure that they don't demonize the other side (or consider "the other side" as a homogeneous group). Like it or lump it, we're all in this together--my vote is as good as yours, and if either of us wants the other's vote, we're going to have to discuss matters. Violence against fellow citizens is not the answer.
But that said, I want to point to two problems here in your argument:
First, when people on the left talk about calls for violence from the right, they usually are thinking about Glenn Beck, Hannity, Rush--nationally syndicated people with large audiences (who often brag about their audiences and their influence). In fact, according to a recent poll, while most people weren't sure who spoke for the GOP (52%), a plurality who offered a name offered Rush's name (13%).
Now, maybe I've been out of the loop on the lefty newsletters, but I have yet to see anyone point to Harry Belafonte or Christine Lahti as leaders of the progressive movement.
So, in at least two of your notable quotes seem ridiculous to me because of the scale of the speaker: Belafonte does not speak for the American left in the same way that Rush speaks for the American right. (Now, don't get me wrong--rememeber, I said that these groups are not homogeneous, and there may be some people on the left who listen to Belafonte and there may be some people on the right who don't listen to Rush--but you have to see the difference there between the scale of their audiences, don't you?)
Second, I'm not going to quibble with your list of left-wing calls to violence, but I just want to look at some of the effects of all these calls to violence: in the last few months, we've had
-one guy go shoot up a church that was too liberal;
-one guy kill an abortion doctor;
-one guy shoot cops because he was afraid they were going to take away his guns;
-one guy in Maine with material for a dirty bomb and a plan to bomb the inauguration;
-and one guy shooting at the Holocaust Museum.
Let's be clear about this: crazy people do crazy things because they're crazy--not because someone tells them to.
And yet, oddly enough, it seems that most of the violent crazy crimes that we hear about are associated with right-wing ideals, such as the sovereign citizens movement and the pro-life movement. Now, I'm not (repeat: NOT) saying that these movements are composed of violent crazies--you may believe in these movements and not be violently crazy. However, I am pointing out that violent crazies seem to find something that they like in some of these movements.
So, let's be honest here: O'Reilly talks about Tiller, someone shoots Tiller; Olbermann talks about Bush...and somebody makes a movie about shooting Bush and another guy throws a shoe at him.
So, looking at what people are doing, I think it's pretty clear that right-wing speech leads to more violence than left-wing speech.
(Two pre-emptive counter-arguments: someone I'm sure will bring up the death of Private Long, which I've argued about before, but I'll argue here again: Private Long was shot by a Muslim convert; Private Long was not talked about by anyone on the left before the shooting; and I've yet to see someone on the Left say that American soldiers should be shot. (Also, I'll just add: most of the left-leaning people I know are secular--mostly, me and my secular friends don't really agree with religious fundamentalists of whatever religion. A Christian shooter, a Muslim shooter--they may be one of our guys, but call me when you get a secular humanist shooter.)
(Second, I'm sure someone will argue that Von Brunn was really a lefty, which you can prove because he talked about shooting the Weekly Standard or because you know that all anti-Semites are really on the left. I'm not so sure about those arguments: first, it's clear that he was more anti-Semitic than neo-con, so shooting up the pro-Israel Weekly Standard makes sense for an anti-Semite; second, anti-Semitism is not really a left / right thing--there's enough of it to go around (and don't argue with me that the left wants Israel to fail and that proves they're anti-Semites, because--surprise!--not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews. Also, as a left-wing Jew, I don't want Israel to fail); third, Von Brunn was not a neo-conservative when it came to Israel, but in a lot of other ways he actually seems more conservative than liberal: for instance, he tried to arrest the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (since he thought the Fed was breaking some laws--he seems to have believed in state's rights and smaller government). Von Brunn was basicaly a Buchananite conservative; there are other types of conservatism than Buchanan's type, but Buchanan's type of conservatism is still a type of conservatism.)
Whoa there
June 12, 2009 - 15:45 ET by KC MulvilleI know you addressed this to Tim, but it's a forum, so forgive me if I get involved.
Calls for violence? When did any of these guys call for violence?
Besides, the fact that they boast of their audience, or that a poll names them, doesn't make them official leaders who speak for the movement. First of all, no one speaks for the movement. It ain't a church with bishops. Therefore, you can't extrapolate conservativism from what three pundits on Fox say. Besides, National Review is probably a more authoritative source, as well as any number of other venues: The Heritage Foundation, Weekly Standard, First Things, etc.
The Holocaust shooter had nothing to do with the right wing. Absolutely nothing. Why lump him in? And then, through really vague generalizations, to say that he "seems like" a Buchananite conservative - and argue that Buchanan is "still a form" of conservative ... your honor, I object!
By the way, whenever you use the phrase "seems like ... " you're not offering anything objective. "Seems like" is a subjective construction, and it reveals more about your expectations than the real world. When you say that a nutcase shooter "actually seems more conservative than liberal," you're unintentionally revealing your prejudice that conservatives are violent. We conservatives deny that, to say the least.
If you're comparing the results (murder v. shoe), that's absurd. For one thing, you're assuming what you're trying to prove: in the attempt to prove that right-wing conversation provokes violence, you're citing a case where you're assuming that rhetoric provoked violence. You're begging the question.
Even if we accepted your premise, you have no way of knowing how many death threats Olbermann "provoked" against Bush with his rants. The fact that no threats were successful doesn't mean there were no threats.
All in all, I deny your argument.
Some good points there, KC
June 13, 2009 - 09:53 ET by nicholas nicklebyCalls for violence? When did any of these guys call for violence?
Granted. Note: I never said that they called for violence--I said "when people on the left talk about" this issue.
Now, you're also right that they may not be the official leaders of the movement, but you also have to agree that comparing O'Reilly to Belafonte is ridiculous. Yes?
The Holocaust shooter had nothing to do with the right wing.
There are many types of conservativism, KC, right? Von Brunn is clearly a crazy far right person, but his ideology is still more right. Here's a good post by Rick Moran on that issue: http://rightwingnuth....
(Also, I was saying "seems like" because I don't know everything about him--there may be a hidden manifesto somewhere that proves that he was really a far left wacko. In this case, "seems like" is not a statement of my subjective feelings, but a sense of humility towards the unknown.)
Now, you're final comment might be the most interesting point: we can't compare results because we don't know about plans that never went through or intentions. That's true, KC (and you get extra points for correctly using the phrase "begging the question"--does it bug you when people use that to mean "raises the question"), but let's be honest here: when was the last time someone took a shot at one of the Focus on the Family or Operation Rescue head honchos? When was the last time you heard about anarchists throwing bombs?
A bunch of other posters here (below this post) bring up historical ties between left-wing politics and violence, which I grant: the Weathermen was involved in killing people, and their politics were left. No question about that.
But at this time in history, don't you think there's been more violence by certain right-wing extremists than there has been violence by left-wing extremists? (I mean, you may disagree with Moran over Von Brunn, but Poplowski and Adkisson are clearly involved in right-wing politics.)
Now, I want to be super-clear: I am not saying that all conservatives are violent crazies. I'm saying that there seem to be more violent crazies on the conservative side--and if conservatives don't want to be smeared with a broad brush, my recommendation--as it has always been--is for people to step back a little and think about what they're saying.
→ That's right
June 13, 2009 - 10:17 ET by Cool ArrowYou're right. Barack Hussein Obama should not have given Abdulhakim Muhammad the wink on Killing Army recruiter, William Long.
I join you in coindemning this despicable act by President Obama, John Murtha, the New York Times, et al, who have spread the lie that Radical Islam is our fault.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
oh noes!
June 13, 2009 - 10:28 ET by nicholas nicklebyObama's middle name is Hussein! Why did no one ever tell me? That totally changes things.
For instance, when he gave a speech at Cairo condemning anti-Semitism and Palestinean violence and 9/11-denials--if only I knew that his middle name was Hussein, I would have known that he actually meant something completely different from what he was saying.
Thanks for the decoder ring, Cool Arrow. Please tell everyone about this, because I'm sure if they know, he's bound to be defeated in the next election.
(P.S. But in all seriousness, how is the left composed of atheists and radical Muslim fundamentalists and black-power Churches? I mean, I think that's the worldview that you're operating from--I'd just like it explained a little more.)
→ Nickles
June 13, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Cool ArrowUnlike you, I heard, and later read, Obama's Cairo speech to Muslims, in which he referred to himself as "Barack Hussein Obama".
Evidently you didn't get the memo that since the inauguration, it's OK to call him by his name.
(P.S. You didn't address the President's apologism to Muslims as a contributing factor in the death of Pvt William Long).
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
I want you to pay attention to this over-the-top eyeroll:
June 13, 2009 - 16:00 ET by nicholas nicklebyoh, brother!
Cool, I didn't slap you on the wrist for pointing out Obama's middle name--it's not improper to do so, and I don't think I ever said it was, so enjoy his middle name to your heart's content. I merely pointed out that pointing out his middle name does not prove "apologism to Muslims."
So, please, demonstrate in some way that a) Obama has apologized to Muslims unduly and b) that this apologism has anything to do with the death of Private Long.
Because in order to make the case for (a), you're going to have to ignore the times when Obama strongly condemned radical beliefs and specifically said there was no excuse for terrorism. And I'd be curious to hear what he did apologize for--I heard that this last tour was an "apology tour" but I didn't hear a lot of apologizing.
→ Right Nickles.
June 13, 2009 - 16:11 ET by Cool ArrowI didn't know you slapped me on the wrist.
But I'm glad Obama defended a woman's right to wear a hajib. Gosh, I'm sure they're so relieved to hear that! It's the only thing that keeps their heads attached to their necks.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
oh brother, part 2
June 13, 2009 - 16:38 ET by nicholas nicklebyI didn't slap you on the wrist, Cool--when you said that line about me not getting the memo about calling Obama by his full name, I thought you felt like I was taking offense that you called him by his full name. When I said that I wasn't slapping you on the wrist about that I meant that I wasn't bothered by that.
When I joked about how you mentioned Obama's middle name, my point was that you didn't really make an argument. In my second post to you, I asked you to make that argument, since you hadn't yet shown Obama's apologism or how that apologism led to Pvt Long's murder. You still haven't made an argument.
I'm more than willing to hear your side of things, Cool--heck, I'm downright interested in your argument. But you're not making an argument, you're just throwing out one-liners.
→ But why
June 13, 2009 - 16:52 ET by Cool ArrowDo you think I could possibly pursuade you that Obama's speech in Cairo wasn't decidedly favorable towards Muslims at the expense of Israel?
Do you think he and his speechwriters were doofusly unaware he was giving his speech in the year of the 30th anniversary of the Begin/Sadat Peace Treaty?
Get it? Cairo? Anwar Sadat? Egypt? NO MENTION that a Muslim country had actually formed a peace with Israel?
Not even a mention of Sadat?
Is what was ignored by the President unimportant? Evidently.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
what are you trying to prove?
June 13, 2009 - 17:29 ET by nicholas nicklebyCool,
First you wanted to argue that Obama's apologism (no evidence given) gave support to the murderer of Pvt Long (no evidence given). Now you want to argue that it's important that he didn't mention Egypt's peaceful relations with Israel? I'm not sure what he didn't say is more important than what he did say:
He said quite a few good things that needed to be said; so maybe he didn't mention Egyptian-Israeli peace--I'm not sure that's all that important. (He didn't mention Jordan either.)
And I still don't think you've shown proof of Obama's apologism to Muslims--would you like to try again Cool, or would you like to retract your comment about that?
→ Sorry Nickles
June 13, 2009 - 17:38 ET by Cool ArrowI thought I was talking with a Liberal.
But if you're not sure peace is important, you can't fit into the category.
I, at least heard something about peace in the speech.
Maybe we heard different speeches.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
alas...
June 13, 2009 - 17:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyalas Cool, we live in two separate worlds--our love can never be.
But if you find some sort of trans-dimensional communication device, I'm all ears for your arguments.
→ Another thing Nick
June 13, 2009 - 17:54 ET by Cool ArrowSuddenl, since the inauguration, "all ears" is in style.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
→ And yes
June 13, 2009 - 17:55 ET by Cool ArrowYou may buy a vowel.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
Issues
June 13, 2009 - 13:55 ET by KC Mulville"but you also have to agree that comparing O'Reilly to Belafonte is ridiculous. Yes?"
Honestly, nick (may I call you nick?), when I think of conservatism versus liberal, neither O'Reilly nor Belafonte leap to mind. When WFB was alive, I immediately thought of him for conservatives, and for liberals, I'd think of the New York Times. For me, O'Reilly and Belafonte are Saturday-morning cartoon versions of political ideology. That's why blaming conservatives for "hate speech" based on what O'Reilly says strikes me as laughable. To me, who is the more representative conservative: Sean Hannity or Brit Hume? I'd take Hume. No disrespect to Hannity, but there are more developed thinkers out there.
______
Von Brunn
Why does he belong on any spectrum here, liberal or conservative? I don't think he's a liberal, and I know he's not a conservative. He's a nutcase. Why do we have to tag him to either side?
He's tragic proof that not everything is political ideology. He's just an old murderer. Why force ideology where it doesn't belong?
______
The questions that intrigue me are:
What difference does it make whether, in the Jeopardy category of political violence, there are numerically more items of right-wing violence than left-wing?
If neither "wing" advocates violence, and in fact, both wings openly reject violence, how does a count of violent incidents mean anything? What do you think it says about either ideology if it produces more violent incidents?
Does it mean that one ideology is secretly more violent? Or less rational?
If so, confront the irrationality directly. What is it about conservatism that you think is more violent or irrational?
Put yourself in my position: suppose I agree that there have been more incidents. Exactly what is it that you think I should change about my ideology, based on that?
For example, maybe we should stop calling abortionists "baby-killers." OK, for the record, I don't use that term, even though I believe real-life babies are being killed. I don't use the term because I don't think the mothers are trying to be murderers; they're either willfully ignorant or tragically mistaken that their pregnancies are just a "bunch of cells."
Other than that one change, what else?
apologies for the length (and sort of abrupt ending)
June 13, 2009 - 15:31 ET by nicholas nickleby(may I call you nick?)
Sure--I've been called a lot worse here. :)
Also KC, I'm sure we've fought like cats and dogs before and will again, but you ask a lot of good questions here, which I appreciate, and I'll show my appreciation in the only way I know how: trying to answer them as best as I can.
1. I agree with you that, as far as philosophies go, I don't really think I could point out someone who really leads the conservative movement or the progressive movement in America. Even more confusing, perhaps, is that these movements themselves tend to be a little diverse in philosophical outlook.
(So, I could point to Republicans and pro-life group leaders and Democrats and pro-choice group leaders, but these people don't lead the philosophical movement--they only lead parts of it.)
So, for the record, I think we would agree that O'Reilly doesn't speak for any particular movement--he may be his own brand of conservative but that doesn't mean he's the only type of conservative out there. (One of the things that I've enjoyed seeing on these boards is that someone will bring up a conservative thinker and there will be some disagreement over that person's importance or role--it really helps to see how what might seem like a homogeneous mass from the outside ("oh, conservatives are all alike!") really isn't at all homogeneous.)
So I think we agree on that; my point in comparing Belafonte to O'Reilly wasn't that they are acknowledged leaders or that they speak for most liberals / conservatives--my point was mostly that to compare their platforms for speaking out is ridiculous since O'Reilly has, metaphorically, a much bigger megaphone. (For the sake of argument, let's say that Belafonte is crazy liberal and O'Reilly is crazy conservative--only one of them has a regular tv show.) That's why I thought Tim's inclusion of Belafonte and Lahti was ridiculous. (I didn't balk at the inclusion of the other comments from Matthews and Olbermann because that seemed to be a fair comparison.)
2. Von Brunn: Now, granted that there are many branches of conservativism, I think Von Brunn--with his hatred of the Fed--seems more right than left, but I would never argue that he's mainstream right: he seems so far right that the right-left distinction hardly seems appicable--which should raise the question (as you ask), "Why do we have to tag him to either side?" That's a very good question, which I think has to do with your part 3 questions on what difference does it make. So, without more ado...
3. You ask (summarizing) if no political movement/party calls for violence, what does it matter if there's more violence on one side? I think there are a few answers to that (and, mind you, this is some stuff I'm thinking about now, not stuff I want to represent myself as being convinced of), but the biggest that comes to mind is this:
If no group calls for violence, but there's still violence, I think we could ask if there's something sub-textual that makes violence seem like a reasonable answer. For instance, does O'Reilly's style of reporting on Tiller (and this is not an opinion, but a hypothesis) make it seem like there's no chance for a legal solution?
Now, you also ask, if there's some secret irrationality, why not confront that irrationality directly? My answer: because irrationality is not really the problem I'm worried about here. Rising right-wing violence is itself the problem--and I want to emphasize that: I like political argument, and I really think talk of making political dissent illegal is (at this point in time) tin-foil hat territory. What I want isn't an end to political disagreement--and yes, I consider some political disagreements irrational, but maybe other people's irrationality is one of the prices of democracy--I just want an end to politically motivated murders / violence.
And this is why I think that Von Brunn's politics are important, because he's one of the incidents that might show a trend, rather than isolated incidents. I think we agree that right-left isn't perfect for modeling his politics, but after the Poplowski-Adkisson-Roeder trifecta, I want to keep Von Brunn in a gray area--these may be isolated incidents, they may be a trend, they may be a tiny blip of a trend that's not going anywhere. We'll know in the future; all we can do now is be vigilant.
Which brings me to my last problem and your good question about how to prevent these attacks (assuming for the sake of argument that there is a rising trend). You ask, if we accept that there's more right-on-left violence, "Exactly what is it that you think I should change about
my ideology?"
Again, I don't want to change your ideology--that's yours to keep. If you're pro-life, that's fine with me, and I hope you keep working for what you think is right. But if we recognize a slight increase in violence against political opponents, I think we should take a step back and ask why? Perhaps some language is inflammatory ("baby-killer") but then again, for people who believe fetuses are babies, they're just calling it as they see it. So I don't necessarily think that should change. What I would like is maybe some more focus on the legal issues involved, and less shouting down of fellow citizens and more discussion about our differences. (I would never have guessed that you were a Brit Hume-fan.)
Obviously, I'm being a little pollyanna-ish: oh, if only we could talk about things, we'd live in the best of all possible worlds. (Okay, I just slipped from Pollyanna to Pangloss from Candide.)
Well, other than that, I'm not sure: what do you think about your questions? What difference does it make if there's more violence on one side than the other? And if there is more violence on one side or the other, how could we decrease it?
The premise
June 13, 2009 - 19:43 ET by KC MulvilleI deny the premise - I don't think these notorious acts of violence are plausibly connected to an ideology, right or left. In all honesty, when I heard about the shooting of the Army recruiter, I didn't think of blaming liberals. It never occurred to me.
Despite the media's portrayal, I hardly think that two, maybe three, on the outside four ... murders in the space of a week constitutes a rising tide of "political violence." This is a country where the city of Chicago suffered over 500 murders last year, more than "war-torn" Iraq. How many of them were politically motivated? Let's face it, this is a country where some people shoot other people. To suddenly perceive any of them as a rising wave, to me, is over-reacting to the highest degree.
Yeah it's silly. I know that. But that's my point: how do we connect these acts, logically and intellectually responsibly, to conservative rhetoric? I deny you can.
don't I sound conservative at the end of this?
June 14, 2009 - 15:17 ET by nicholas nicklebyThe problem is the nutcase, not the opposition.
I completely agree; where we might disagree is that I see some of the right-wing pundits (and some elected officials) being a little nutty, a la Beck pouring "gasoline" on someone and equating it with what Obama is doing; or Eric Cantor saying that we have no precedent for trying terrorists in courts of law (despite the 216 current prisoners who have been charged with terrorism in American courts of law (which includes international terrorists)--although, for that last one, I'd be willing to accept the answer "Cantor is just plain dumb" as well as "Cantor is being irresponsibly nutty").
As for rising tide of violence, like you, I'm not convinced there is one--I just think it's not a bad thing to keep an eye on. The last time we had a Democratic president and a thriving discourse on sovereign rights, we also had the Oklahoma City bombing. Now, that may have been an isolated event, not part of a rising tide of violence, but I see some parallels, so I think it's a good idea to keep our eyes open to prevent these sorts of domestic terrorism / murder (in addition to being vigilant against international terrorism / murder).
As for your examples (domestic violence doesn't mean we outlaw marriage), we could add another: we have a lot of politics, and only a little is violent--so we don't ban politics. (Indeed, I'd need a new hobby if we did!) All I've said is that we should be vigilant not just about overt acts of violence but about how we all might fuel those acts. (Whether in over-reacting or in dehumanizing political enemies. I mean, you may be right that I'm over-reacting to a trend that isn't there--that's a good thing for me to keep in mind, and it's also why I'm trying to be very clear that I don't want to make dissent illegal in any way--I just want political actors (i.e., all of us) to be aware that our actions have consequences and that we are responsible for those consequences. Phrased that way, don't I sound conservative?)
I completely agree; where
June 14, 2009 - 22:16 ET by BDI completely agree; where we might disagree is that I see some of the right-wing pundits (and some elected officials) being a little nutty, a la Beck pouring "gasoline" on someone and equating it with what Obama is doing;
or Eric Cantor saying that we have no precedent for trying terrorists in courts of law
The last time we had a Democratic president and a thriving discourse on sovereign rights, we also had the Oklahoma City bombing.
Jim Jones
June 14, 2009 - 06:19 ET by Captain KirockAmerican Communist Jim Jones killed over 900 Americans to serve his left wing ideology.
When you talk about "politically motivated murders / violence" you must take these 900 American souls killed in the name of wacked-out Communism into account.
Here you go, one secular humanist coming up
June 12, 2009 - 15:37 ET by DontFeedTheTrollscall me when you get a secular humanist shooter
That would be the shooter at the Holocaust Museum. He railed against Bush, Cheney, Rove, the Christian church, 'neocons', Fox News and supported the same views as Rev. Wright. He also is reportedly a registered democrat.D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Oooops....
June 12, 2009 - 17:02 ET by BDOooops....
First, when people on the
June 12, 2009 - 17:01 ET by BDFirst, when people on the left talk about calls for violence from the right, they usually are thinking about Glenn Beck, Hannity, Rush--nationally syndicated people with large audiences (who often brag about their audiences and their influence).
And yet, oddly enough, it seems that most of the violent crazy crimes that we hear about are associated with right-wing ideals, such as the sovereign citizens movement and the pro-life movement.
So, looking at what people are doing, I think it's pretty clear that right-wing speech leads to more violence than left-wing speech.
Two pre-emptive counter-arguments: someone I'm sure will bring up the death of Private Long, which I've argued about before, but I'll argue here again: Private Long was shot by a Muslim convert; Private Long was not talked about by anyone on the left before the shooting
for instance, he tried to arrest the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (since he thought the Fed was breaking some laws--he seems to have believed in state's rights and smaller government
Von Brunn was basicaly a Buchananite conservative;
all your examples are old, BD
June 13, 2009 - 10:01 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi BD,
I thought it was clear that we were focusing on contemporary political violence. I agree that left-wing politics can be associated with violence--I just don't remember the last time some pro-choice person took a shot at a pro-life person, for example.
As for Von Brunn's politics, I think it's silly to say he's a lefty of any school--but I also think it's silly to say he represents all of conservativism. Clearly, his politics represent only himself--but those politics (anti-federal government, for one) make him seem more right than left. Again, here's Moran's link: http://rightwingnuth....
Now, I think your examples are old or incorrect, but I still think that the left could be associated with violence in theory--it's just that in practice, we get Poplowski, Adkisson, Roeder.
I thought it was clear that
June 13, 2009 - 20:51 ET by BDI thought it was clear that we were focusing on contemporary political violence.
I agree that left-wing politics can be associated with violence--I just don't remember the last time some pro-choice person took a shot at a pro-life person, for example.
→ BD
June 13, 2009 - 21:00 ET by Cool Arrow2,000 arsons and vandalisms by Earth Liberation Front (ELF) in the last 10 years, and it's the conservatives who are violent.
♣ a seal
good point Cool
June 14, 2009 - 15:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyAnd let's remember the WTO riots in Seattle--there was some more property damage there. Now, property damage is serious, whether it happens to a recruiting station, an abortion clinic, or a bank. But it's not murder. So, I agree that there's some violence on the left, but it seems qualitatively different at this moment.
Also, the fact that ELF is responsible for violence is probably why they were on the DHS security memo about left-wing violence. The difference being that most mainstream liberals saw that report and said, "sure, that's true of some people," as opposed to the right reaction to the DHS report on right-wing violence, which was more "how dare you say that about my mother!"
Nonsense. The bomb at the
June 14, 2009 - 22:20 ET by BDNonsense. The bomb at the recruting station was placed at the main doorway with the intent to maim. Premature detonation (Damn, it happens on the left, you know????) saved the team who work there.
As noted previously, most attempts done in the 1970-80's were oriented on KILLING. Several were successful. Mumia ring a bell?
I sat down and thought
June 14, 2009 - 12:13 ET by BDI sat down and thought about it and concluded that I had forgotten to remind you of the attacks on recruting centers last winter that climaxed with the bombing of the Times Square center bombing.
I doubt you can credit those to conservatives....
good examples BD. Even if
June 14, 2009 - 15:20 ET by nicholas nicklebygood examples BD. Even if they were carried out in the early hours of the morning to prevent killing anyone, bombs are reprehensible ways to make political points, just as bullets are. Which is why we need to make sure that we're not fueling the violence, of whatever level.
Premature detonation of an
June 14, 2009 - 22:24 ET by BDPremature detonation of an explosive planted at the doorway to catch the arriving personnel. You install such devices when no one is watching, right.
So, you also want to hold this standard against Code PInk, right? Cindy Sheehan?
Two words for you Nick: People's Temple
June 12, 2009 - 18:24 ET by Captain KirockI think it's safe to say that left-wing nut job Jim Jones was responsible for more American deaths than all the American right-wing crazies combined, for what? Maybe the last 50 years?
→ Jim Jones
June 12, 2009 - 18:28 ET by Cool ArrowJim's good friends included Mayor Willie Brown and Gov. Jerry Brown.
The only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black - Joe Biden
That's right Cool Arrow.
June 12, 2009 - 18:37 ET by Captain KirockAnd let's not forget Walter Mondale, Rossalyn Carter, and latest lefty hero Harvey Milk were also associated with Jim Jones and his bizzaro Marxist views.