43 replies to this topic

[Chato]

This graph is no longer on Ms. Palins Twitter site...



And to be fair to Ms. Palin she has already expressed her condolances to the family of Congresswoman Giffords. Moreover I suspect she is horrified. But I start this thread, and post the above to point out the casual rhetoric that is a hall mark of our politics today. And yes, the left and center are not without responsibility - But it is the political right which makes these kinds of charts, and "casually" drops these kinds of remarks, such as "treason" and "traitors," and it is no wonder that disturbed minds act on these visual clues and what they regard as instructions. I have no doubt that people like Beck and Limbaugh, et al, while paying lip service to the mandatory condemnation of this attack, will also shrug off any responsibility, and will not make any changes in their rhetoric.

Dave

[Chato]

Excerpts from an editorial in the Chicago Sun Times. At least a major media out let cuts out the stupid neutrality BS as to who is responsible for the hatred in todays political atmosphere...

Quote

We can’t say we weren’t warned about Arizona shooting tragedy

In what kind of a country do callers to radio shows routinely smear those with whom they disagree — beginning with our president — as “traitors” and “un-American,” while pandering hosts say only, “Thanks for the call.”

If we continue this way, the sensible people warned, something will happen.

And now something has happened.

Only in time will we know if the killer was among those who threatened Giffords with physical harm last year when she voted in favor of President Obama’s health-care reforms. We may never know whether he was the one who shattered the windows of her Tucson office. And it’s entirely possible that he was not among those — the many — who threatened her with death after she spoke out against Arizona’s harsh new immigration law.

But would any intelligent person be surprised to learn otherwise?

The safe observation for us to make now — you will hear it from others all week — is that the angry and irresponsible talk that might lead an unhinged person to pick up a gun is common across the political landscape, from right to left.

But that simply is not true.

Overwhelmingly today, the fear-mongering and demonizing flow from the right, aided and abetted by cable TV and talk-radio hosts. They may represent only the irresponsible fringe of conservatism in America, but they are drowning out the thoughtful voices of the vast majority of conservatives.

http://www.suntimes....z-saturday.html

The entire editorial is a good read.

Dave

I'm going to edit in an excerpt from a very perceptive piece by Juan Cole. His short essay is extremely thoughtful...

Quote

As usual, when white people do these things, the mass media doesn’t call it terrorism. (UpdateA canny reader in comments pointed out that if a Muslim organization had put out a poster with American politicians in the cross-hairs, and one had gotten shot, there would have been he’ll to pay.)
http://www.juancole....ontent=FaceBook

Edited by Chato, 09 January 2011 - 07:59 PM.

[Scotty]

It is all quite a horrid thing that happened.

I think with people (like Sarah Palin) that use the harsher rhetoric towards people aren't thinking of what it means to some people, they are doing it to get attention and make money.  It works brilliantly, but I think they really have no clue at all.  Just dollar signs.  I think they are that ignorant.  It is just a game.

-Scott

[Chato]

Scotty, on 10 January 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

It is all quite a horrid thing that happened.

I think with people (like Sarah Palin) that use the harsher rhetoric towards people aren't thinking of what it means to some people, they are doing it to get attention and make money.  It works brilliantly, but I think they really have no clue at all.  Just dollar signs.  I think they are that ignorant.  It is just a game.

-Scott

I am trying hard to be fair on this issue. The Palin graphic is a visual example. But she is simply one of many who tell us that Universal Health Care is an attempt by government to kill any and all whose lives do not meet govrnment set criteria...

Quote

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president's health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll

Now the above quote is from Ms. Palin, but even today, this very day, you can go top the site of Rush Limbaugh or any of the other Far Right media sites and get the same message. Government Death panels are either here or coming.

Here's a sort of toned down version from Limbaugh's site today:

Quote

And now they want doctors to start having discussions about when it's appropriate for you to just check out.  And we remember Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, we know that liberals are liberals and Democrats are Democrats, and we remember this guy saying back in the eighties, 20 years ago plus, this guy said old people have a duty to die and get out of the way.  Well, when the president, when the secretary of Health and Human Services, when the paying agent starts talking that way, old people have a duty to die and then they assign doctors to have such conversations or they don't get paid, red flags go up all over the place, pure and simple.
http://www.rushlimba...5110.guest.html

Mr. Limbaugh as a video on the above link, and since honesty is an important question here it should also be pointed out that this video is heavily edited...
the actual video tells a different story

http://vodpod.com/wa...sion-in-context

So let me pause and ask, is not violent resistance to the murder of your grandparents, or children morally justifiable?

This is ONLY one of many issues where the rhetoric has reached the point of justifying political murder.

Again, the question is not Limbaugh or Palin, but all of those on the political Right who tolerate and encourage these kinds of people and rhetoric without crticism or complaint; defacto legitimizing these kinds of tactics and lies.

Finally, as for the question of making money...

No doubt that has something to do with this, but Power, is a more gratifying aquisition than money. It wasn't money that made the head of the Republican Party beg and apologize to Rush Limbaugh - It was Power that caused that apolology, and listenting to Limbaugh tone as he accepted that apology, it was easy to tell the real source of his gratification.

Dave

Edited by Chato, 10 January 2011 - 05:35 PM.

[The Heretic]

I am unable to see the graphic in the OP. It may be blocked by my work filter, but I just checked my iPhone and it is not showing up there either.

But all this blaming of others for the actions of an individual seems to reek of bad faith.

[Scotty]

http://www.huffingto...n_n_511433.html

That is the quickest I could fine for you Heretic.

Chato, will have to mull it all over, more later (work interfering!)
-Scott

[BDS]

The Heretic, on 10 January 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

But all this blaming of others for the actions of an individual seems to reek of bad faith.

The Palin gunsights (which I am able to see now thanks to Scotty) seem pretty innocuous to me.  They "target" election "battles" that Republicans want to win.  I'll grant that military metaphors for elections (or sports, or success in business) are mildly obnoxious.  But they are so common that we can hardly find them surprising.

Radio talk show hosts are in the business of polarizing, shocking, and enraging their listeners.  But blaming them for assasinations is as ludicrous(if not more so) as anything they say. In addition, the notion that modern radio hosts are MORE inflammatory than public figures were in the past is simply incorrect.  The 20th century was the century of McCarthy, the Scopes Trials, etc., etc. By comparison, Palin, Limbaugh, et. al. are compassionate and benign.

Edited by BDS, 10 January 2011 - 06:15 PM.

[Michael S. Pearl]

Might it be that it is the behind-the-scenes Republicans who are encouraging this opportunity for Palin marginalization so as to rid themselves of the noxious notion that she might seek the Republican presidential nomination? If they can have her (further) marginalized and (figuratively) martyred, they can still expect her supporters to vociferously side with the Republican Party rather than become disinterested and apathetic. Ah, the brain at work in a smoke-filled room!

Michael

[Chato]

BDS, on 10 January 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

The Heretic, on 10 January 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

But all this blaming of others for the actions of an individual seems to reek of bad faith.

The Palin gunsights (which I am able to see now thanks to Scotty) seem pretty innocuous to me.  They "target" election "battles" that Republicans want to win.  I'll grant that military metaphors for elections (or sports, or success in business) are mildly obnoxious.  But they are so common that we can hardly find them surprising.

Radio talk show hosts are in the business of polarizing, shocking, and enraging their listeners.  But blaming them for assasinations is as ludicrous(if not more so) as anything they say. In addition, the notion that modern radio hosts are MORE inflammatory than public figures were in the past is simply incorrect.  The 20th century was the century of McCarthy, the Scopes Trials, etc., etc. By comparison, Palin, Limbaugh, et. al. are compassionate and benign.

You have stated on previous threads that you have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh...

I assume that you also didn't have time to read the literature about the Death Panals that Democrats are seeking to impose on the American People with their mandated Socialist programs?

Naturally YOU - PERSONALLY - DON"T - FEEL - THAT - THIS - IS - A - THREAT!

Of course, if you thought that government was coming to kill your parents or children - Who knows? You might regard these graphics, edited videos, lies, calls to get rid of the Communists and Socialists seeking to destroy America differently. And was not Sarah Palin running for Vice President of the United States? Is not Bohnner the Speaker of the House? Did not the head of the Republican Party, figuratively get down on his hands and knees to beg the pardon of Rush Limbaugh?

Dave

[Scotty]

I will say, the one thing that is different from past inflammatory figures and today, is reach.  It is quite easy to reach millions of people now in an instant and you don't even have to be that popular.  Maybe that is a good direction for this thread?

-Scott

[BDS]

Chato, on 10 January 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

You have stated on previous threads that you have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh...

No I didn't.  I stated that I have little familiarity with Beck.  I used to listen to Limbaugh's show fairly often -- it was a good show back 15-20 years ago.  Limbaugh's current show sucks, mainly because he no longer takes many calls.  When it comes to nutty radio shows, the callers rule!  When the hosts fall in love with their own voices (as Limbaugh did some time ago) the show collapses.  That's why Dr. Laura's show has continued to be worth listening to -- she actually takes calls.

If we want to live in a Democracy, we must put up with argumentative, polarizing speech.  There's no reasonable way to eliminate it.

[Chato]

BDS, on 10 January 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

Chato, on 10 January 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

You have stated on previous threads that you have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh...

No I didn't.  I stated that I have little familiarity with Beck.  I used to listen to Limbaugh's show fairly often -- it was a good show back 15-20 years ago.  Limbaugh's current show sucks, mainly because he no longer takes many calls.  When it comes to nutty radio shows, the callers rule!  When the hosts fall in love with their own voices (as Limbaugh did some time ago) the show collapses.  That's why Dr. Laura's show has continued to be worth listening to -- she actually takes calls.

If we want to live in a Democracy, we must put up with argumentative, polarizing speech.  There's no reasonable way to eliminate it.

Let me rehash my points and "put words into your mouth."  

You have stated that this is similar to the McCarthy period. This is true. It is also similar to the period of World War One and the early twenties which witnessed the Palmer raids. All well and good to point this out. But My Point is that starting with the election of Mr. Clinton the level of rhetoric has reached a crecendo, going far beyond anything seen in America since the prelude to the Civil War. IN That period the rhetoric was even harsher, although we're getting there now.

This assassin is cannot be given a Tea Party or even a "right" wing label. Indeed, oddly enough the only portion of the media which has provided a link is Fox News which claimed that he was connected to a branch of Nazi's called the Renascance Party. A claim debunked by some feet on the ground leftist researchers. So he's just a nut job.

But the atmosphere we are living in today, which you essentially ignore, is treason, traitors, death panels, internement camps, censorship, imminent dictatorship. Am I making this up? Am I even exagerating it? Nope, I am not. In fact, even as I type, this same right wing media which I so condemn is iterating all of the above, and claiming that this incident is being used by the evil forces of Socialism to make it illegal for this Right Wing Media to continue.

Is there anyone proposing that Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck be legally censored? Again, there is no such proposals on the floor.

Quote

RUSH: Do not kid yourself.  What this is all about is shutting down conservative media.  That's what this is all about.  Shutting down any and all political opposition.  That's what the objective of the left and the Democrats is: Criminalizing policy differences, at least when they differ from the Democrat agenda.  
http://www.rushlimba...5110.guest.html

Or the more "reasonable" Michelle Malken

Quote

The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.
http://michellemalkin.com/

She then goes on to post examples of left wing hate. And she is right. There are individual demonstrators or persons with a blog who do indeed post hatred of people like Bush and Palin.

God forbid that I post posters and blogs of individuals on the right.

She is reduced to this level of "debate" because there are no left wing politicians or media personalities who have signs showing Bush's head being cut off.

In other words there are no Democrats or even mainstram leftist (Like Chomsky) who use the language that she, Beck and Limbaugh use, and she knows it.

In todays Right Wing Media, the everyday language is as I describe; we are surrounded by traitors and Communists who want to round us all up; create Death Panels to kill our grandparents and children, censor us, who want to confiscate our proterty, who want to legimate having sex with children, dogs, cats and street pigions, and passing ducks and snails.

Sorry, no, I lived through the McCarthy period. Not only did I live through it, but my family played a role in defeating McCarthyism, being one of six families in NYC who refused to sign a loyalty oath to get into public housing.  

When prominent Politicians in leading positions in the Country embrace the rjhetoric of violance and hatred, this creates an atmosphere in which crazies like this young man find an affirmation for their violence.

Dave

Edited by Chato, 11 January 2011 - 06:01 PM.

[Chato]

Meanwhile, back in Tuscon, the home of miniature Rush Limbaughs...

Quote

In that post, I chronicled how Tucson’s bush-league Limbaugh (who reportedly lost a previous on-air slot when he pretended to drown a dog on-air) made anti-immigrant, racist and homophobic remarks on-air – and then posted sexist and racist videos on YouTube attacking Isabel Garcia, a well-known Arizona-based immigrant rights advocate.

“We’ve been facing down the forces of hate for years,” Garcia told me. “But it has never been like this before – until Jon Justice and hate radio 104.1 FM came around and began making derogatory comments and using hateful language while regularly fomenting lies, fear and misinformation about immigrants.”

Garcia’s associate Kat Rodriguez said she “would usually shrug this off as idiotic, but it has actually gained traction. This right-wing jerk, whose show is a constant stream of anti-immigrant, racist, and homophobic rhetoric, is leading the charge, even commenting the other day that we need ‘bloodshed in the polling places.’ Nobody outside of Arizona knows what is going on, and the madness continues,” concluded Rodriguez.

Having been branded a lesbian, a communist and a terrorist, and likened to Al Qaeda, Garcia was then targeted by a local anti-Mexican immigration activist named Roy Warden. After threatening those he terms “Left Wing activists and Pendejo Thugs” that he will “draw my weapon and blow your freaking heads off,” Warden warned that he might “turn their skulls into red mush” in an attack that “will make the Shootout at the OK Corral look like a Sunday school picnic.”

Given that more people were killed in the recent Tucson shooting than died in the actual OK Corral episode, it seems fair to ask: Who is really putting the fate of our country in peril – hate-speaking shock jocks, or those who criticize them?
http://www.roryoconn...cts-in-arizona/

Since the list of major politicians, their issues and RIght Wing Media is so long, I keep forgetting to add the warning, "That the greatest threat to America is the imposition of Sharia Law," a statement of Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. A wildly hailed statement I might add. But then again, there are so many "Greatest Threats" to America. I'm sure I can add some others. And no doubt, someone, some where can come up with a photograph of some left wing demnstrator in Iowa to match and juxtopose it.

Dave

[BDS]

The crises of the present always seem more critical than those of the past.  If MY memory serves, left-wingers in the ‘60s and early ‘70s were planting bombs (although none so effective as Timothy McVeigh’s) and calling for assassinations.  This was not idle ranting, but serous revolutionary planning.  

How is the “level of rhetoric” used by the right-wingers of today’s media more incendiary than the rhetoric of that era?  It isn’t.  How is the country more polarized than it was in the ‘60s and early 70s?  It isn’t.  

I’ll grant that norms of discourse have changed (slightly), so that relatively mainstream media outlets rant more than they did in the 60s or 70s (although not more than the underground outlets).  But that’s just because there are so many more blogs, TV channels, and internet sites that people have to be more outrageous to be noticed.  The more TV and radio stations there are, the more likely some of them will be outrageous.  And isn't it true that two Kennedys and a King were assasinated, and Ford and Reagan were shot at? How is it that today's nut-jobs are shooting people because of right-wing rhetoric, but the assasins of the past, who had no such motivations, were equally motivated to arm themselves and start firing?

[Chato]

BDS, on 11 January 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

The crises of the present always seem more critical than those of the past.  If MY memory serves, left-wingers in the ‘60s and early ‘70s were planting bombs (although none so effective as Timothy McVeigh’s) and calling for assassinations.  This was not idle ranting, but serous revolutionary planning.  

How is the “level of rhetoric” used by the right-wingers of today’s media more incendiary than the rhetoric of that era?  It isn’t.  How is the country more polarized than it was in the ‘60s and early 70s?  It isn’t.  

Right wingers of the twenties and fifties were not calling for Second Amendment remedies.

Nor were right wingers of the sixties calling for Second Amendment remedies. And although the "revolutionary" left were, well, calling for revolution, I would hardly call them "Media Personalities." In fact the media of the day had a field day with hyping the Revolutionaries, who at best consisted of a few thousand people. Agnew and Mitchel may have taken the talk of revolution seriously - But the Weather Undergound consisted of a few hundred people. The mainstream opposition to the Vietnam War did not use the rhetoric of hate.

BDS, on 11 January 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

I’ll grant that norms of discourse have changed (slightly), so that relatively mainstream media outlets rant more than they did in the 60s or 70s (although not more than the underground outlets).  But that’s just because there are so many more blogs, TV channels, and internet sites that people have to be more outrageous to be noticed.  The more TV and radio stations there are, the more likely some of them will be outrageous.  And isn't it true that two Kennedys and a King were assasinated, and Ford and Reagan were shot at? How is it that today's nut-jobs are shooting people because of right-wing rhetoric, but the assasins of the past, who had no such motivations, were equally motivated to arm themselves and start firing?

There are tens of Millions of people who see the country as about to be (if not already) taken over by the Communist and/or Islamic or illegal immigrant menace. Mainstream Republicans (who used to be referred to as the "lunatic RIght") are now actually in powerful positions. Scores of Media outlets act as echo chambers. And unlike the Fifties it is the government itself which is seen as the enemy. And these million of people are being told to prepare for the imminent arrival of concentration camps, and dictatorship.

The difference is not just a question of rationality. The fears of the Fifties had however at least a grain of truth. There actualy was a Soviet Union. The lunatic fringe was not in the saddle. Even Republicans referred to people like Bohnner and Palin as the "lunatic Fringe." And if McCarthy had some success with his fear mongering, and put millions into fear, these millions were not preparinig for imminent dictatorship.

Sorry, no, todays era bares no resemblance to anything of the recent past. In order to find a comparison one has to go back to the prelude to the Civil War, where right wing media referred to Lincohns innaugaral speech as a "Call to destroy the South."

So yes indeed there are parallels in history - But you do remember what the rhetoric of the 1850's led to?

Dave

Edited by Chato, 12 January 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[BDS]

You just don't remember the past of 40 years ago as well as the past year or two, Chato.  I'm not going to substantiate my memories by researching them (because I don't think it's worth while), but I remember second ammendment gun nuts from the 60s perfectly well. The percentage of people in this country who fear Communist takeover is probably as low as it has been for 70 years.  The risk of revolution or civil war is lower than it was in the 30s or 60s.  You are exaggerating the risks, which are virtually non-existant.  The reality is that major media outlets don't want to foment revolution, because their owners and advertisers are the powerbrokers in the current system.  They may pander to some nutty listeners, but if the threat of revolution ever gets serious, they will back off, or lose their revenue.

[Chato]

BDS, on 12 January 2011 - 04:47 PM, said:

You just don't remember the past of 40 years ago as well as the past year or two, Chato.  I'm not going to substantiate my memories by researching them (because I don't think it's worth while), but I remember second ammendment gun nuts from the 60s perfectly well. The percentage of people in this country who fear Communist takeover is probably as low as it has been for 70 years.  The risk of revolution or civil war is lower than it was in the 30s or 60s.  You are exaggerating the risks, which are virtually non-existant.  The reality is that major media outlets don't want to foment revolution, because their owners and advertisers are the powerbrokers in the current system.  They may pander to some nutty listeners, but if the threat of revolution ever gets serious, they will back off, or lose their revenue.

I don't think you get it here. There have ALWAYS been lunatics from the left or the right. And there always will be such lunatics. These lunatics have never been in charge of the asylum.

You CANNOT find quotes from major personalities of the Fifities or Sixties calling their mainstream opponents traitors. You CANNOT find quotes from major personalities telling us of the immenent arrival of concentration camps and dictatorship. You CANNOT fine quotes such as the one from Glenn Beck calling for the murder of such people as Michael Moore.

We are not talking about people like myself giving a speech from a soapbox in Union Square, with a "crowd" of twenty listeners, raving about the Nazi's who sit in the White House.

However, if you go back to the 1850's you can find such quotes. In the 1850's you can find all of the above.

As I said, there was a germ of rationality in the hysteria of the Fifties. There is no such germ of rationality today, which makes what passes for discussion even more difficult. Once rationality is abandoned, what rationals are needed to keep the fear alive? The debate passes out of existence. What can I say to someone who "fears the imposition of Sharia Law?" What can I say to someone who believes that Mr. Obama is a Muslim planning on destroying America? You are aware that polls show that 30 percent of Ameircans actually believe the above. Where do you think they get these beliefs? And if they have these beliefs, what do you think they are prepared to do?

Certainly if I had such beliefs, I would "prepare" for the worst. Wouldn't you?

You are a rational man. That's nice...

Dave

Edited in...

To refresh my memory, I did a brief check of McCarthys speeches. Yup, he was a lunatic, although my version of him is correct. And of course his reign lasted four years, (!950-54) before he was censored by the US Senate in an overwhelming bi-partisan vote...

And McCarthy ALWAYS made a clear distinction between the overwhelming number of patriotic Democrats and the small handful of traitors in the party.

Dave

Edited by Chato, 12 January 2011 - 05:28 PM.

[The Heretic]

The most concise take on this shooter's political beliefs is from the Salon.com. As I thought, it is neither completely left-wing, nor right-wing, but anti-authoritarian.

Quote

"The sole ideological thread running through [Jared Lee] Loughner's [book] list is an inchoate anti-authoritarianism. It's likely that what attracted him to 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Communist Manifesto' was less the political thinking in either book than their aura of the forbidden, the sensation that he was defying the adults around him by daring to read either one. The rest of his favorites—'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' 'Brave New World,' 'Animal Farm' and 'Fahrenheit 451'—depict deceitful and oppressive regimes committed to squelching individual initiative and thought."

~ Laura Miller, "The real message of Loughner's book list" (Salon)

[BDS]

Even if it is the case that I cannot find quotes for "major personalities" as incendiary as those from today's talk show hosts (I'm not going to try), how does that prove your points or refute mine?  

My points were: 1) More people believed there was risk of communist takeover in the past than now; 2) The risk of revolution was greater in the past than now.  The fact (asserted by you and not disproven by me, although I don't believe it) that some media types are more incendiary in their rhetoric than past media types has little bearing on either of those points.  Instead, as I patiently pointed out, it is probably the result of the proliferation of TV channels.  

I'm sure there are two or three people in America who fear the imposition of Sharia law.  I doubt their numbers are sufficient to pose a threat of revolution.

Edited by BDS, 12 January 2011 - 05:36 PM.

[DaveT]

BDS, on 12 January 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

Even if it is the case that I cannot find quotes for "major personalities" as incendiary as those from today's talk show hosts (I'm not going to try), how does that prove your points or refute mine?  

My points were: 1) More people believed there was risk of communist takeover in the past than now; 2) The risk of revolution was greater in the past than now.  The fact (asserted by you and not disproven by me, although I don't believe it) that some media types are more incendiary in their rhetoric than past media types has little bearing on either of those points.  Instead, as I patiently pointed out, it is probably the result of the proliferation of TV channels.  

I'm sure there are two or three people in America who fear the imposition of Sharia law.  I doubt their numbers are sufficient to pose a threat of revolution.

Judging by dozens of Facebook groups I've read through, hijacked, and trolled, there are many more than 2 or 3 people in America who fear the imposition of Sharia law. There are whole groups with hundreds of members advocating the forced emmigration of every Muslim in America. A disconcering number of these people also advocate nuking Pakistan and the Middle East once the Muslims are sent back.

Now, I accept (well, I hope) that whilst the number of Americans I've seen showing such vitriolic hatred does number in the hundreds, if not the thousands, that could very well be a very low (I won't say insignificant) percentage of the American population.

What's really troubling is that people like Daniel Pipes, Pat Condell, and Robert Spencer have a very large following on the internet, with even intelligent, anti-discriminatory people who usually have balanced judgements on things accepting what they say without question, even when it's absolutely ridiculous; therefore, one or two people fearing Sharia is a gross understatement. Need we fear a revolution? Not yet, but there's a lot of hate speech going in one direction, and more people are believing it, so I think sometime in the foreseeable future there will be either a misguided revolution or Muslim-targeting McCarthyism.

[Chato]

The Heretic, on 12 January 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

The most concise take on this shooter's political beliefs is from the Salon.com. As I thought, it is neither completely left-wing, nor right-wing, but anti-authoritarian.

Quote

"The sole ideological thread running through [Jared Lee] Loughner's [book] list is an inchoate anti-authoritarianism. It's likely that what attracted him to 'Mein Kampf' and 'The Communist Manifesto' was less the political thinking in either book than their aura of the forbidden, the sensation that he was defying the adults around him by daring to read either one. The rest of his favorites—'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' 'Brave New World,' 'Animal Farm' and 'Fahrenheit 451'—depict deceitful and oppressive regimes committed to squelching individual initiative and thought."

~ Laura Miller, "The real message of Loughner's book list" (Salon)

He seems to simply be out of his mind, although some of his fixations such as our money being worthless without a gold standard come from right wing sources.

My opening post of course shows my agenda here. But I believe I was fair in pointing out that Ms. Palin is probably horrified at what has occured.

But her horror is not the point...

Look. What actually justifies violence? That is my point about right wing rhetoric, from major media and political sources.

I would feel justified in using violence if the Republicans imposed a dictatorship, and I would be justified in advocating violence if I believed such a take over was weeks or months from taking place.

In the lunatic world of the radical right, we are actually hearing such direct rhetoric. Is this not so?

And is it not equally true, that this kind of rhetoric hasn't been heard since the 1850's?

When I was a kid all ends of the political spectrum laughed at the John Birch Society; and this was during the McCarthy period.  I'm not laughing anymore. Their in power. In fact, they are considered "moderates."

I don't want to be offensive. But isn't there a sort of "head in the sand" atttitude when someone like Beck or Coulter can justify murder or bombing, and suffer no repercusions? Can anyone seriously claim that a climate where such rhetoric is Normal doesn't have an impact on those on the edge? Mind you, I'm NOT advocating censorship by law. But if the media chooses to treat such language without commentary, isn't that also creating a climate where such rhetoric is proper and "reasonable?"

Dave

[Chato]

DaveT, on 12 January 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

BDS, on 12 January 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

Even if it is the case that I cannot find quotes for "major personalities" as incendiary as those from today's talk show hosts (I'm not going to try), how does that prove your points or refute mine?  

My points were: 1) More people believed there was risk of communist takeover in the past than now; 2) The risk of revolution was greater in the past than now.  The fact (asserted by you and not disproven by me, although I don't believe it) that some media types are more incendiary in their rhetoric than past media types has little bearing on either of those points.  Instead, as I patiently pointed out, it is probably the result of the proliferation of TV channels.  

I'm sure there are two or three people in America who fear the imposition of Sharia law.  I doubt their numbers are sufficient to pose a threat of revolution.

Judging by dozens of Facebook groups I've read through, hijacked, and trolled, there are many more than 2 or 3 people in America who fear the imposition of Sharia law. There are whole groups with hundreds of members advocating the forced emmigration of every Muslim in America. A disconcering number of these people also advocate nuking Pakistan and the Middle East once the Muslims are sent back.

Now, I accept (well, I hope) that whilst the number of Americans I've seen showing such vitriolic hatred does number in the hundreds, if not the thousands, that could very well be a very low (I won't say insignificant) percentage of the American population.

What's really troubling is that people like Daniel Pipes, Pat Condell, and Robert Spencer have a very large following on the internet, with even intelligent, anti-discriminatory people who usually have balanced judgements on things accepting what they say without question, even when it's absolutely ridiculous; therefore, one or two people fearing Sharia is a gross understatement. Need we fear a revolution? Not yet, but there's a lot of hate speech going in one direction, and more people are believing it, so I think sometime in the foreseeable future there will be either a misguided revolution or Muslim-targeting McCarthyism.

Mr. Gingrich is the potential Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. He has warned about Sharia Law at major political events, to be greeted with applause. The National Review has run articles and opinion pieces, not only praising his speeches, but stating that in the future no candidate can ignore this menace.

Yeah, right, sounds nuts.

Dave

[Chato]

Gingrich et al, are not being stupid here...

Quote

A majority of Republicans believe that President Barack Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world," according to a survey released on Monday.

That figure, buried at the very end of a newly released Newsweek public opinion poll, reflects the extent to which a shocking bit of smear and misinformation has managed to become nearly commonplace within the GOP tent.

(Read the full poll results here.)

http://www.pixiq.com...-flying-cameras

Dave

[BDS]

A couple of points:  First, “Warning about” Sharia law is not identical to believing that Sharia law is a major threat to America.  Second, people report believing things that they do not, in fact, believe.  Claiming to feel threatened by Sharia law is just a code for xenophobia and patriotism – just like  “believing” that Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya is a code for racism.   Only the most credulous of Beck’s listeners actually believe this stuff (I’ll bet), but many use the code.  (I couldn’t find a link to the Newsweek poll, but I don’t believe that, either.)

I was incredulous about the National Review articles, so I looked them up.  Here are the three most recent references to Sharia law, and they all make my “code” point more eloquently than I can.

http://www.nationalr...s-von-spakovsky


http://www.nationalr...el-james-barton

http://www.nationalr...drew-c-mccarthy

One of the articles criticizes Kennedy's reference to foreign practices in a decision. Another objects to a federal judge rejecting an Oklahoma constitutional change outlawing reference to foreign law in decisions (the amendment is xenophobia at its finest, and the article only refers to Sharia law to attempt (and fail) to be incendiary).  The third is just some idiotic nonsense about how Sharia law is the equivalent of Jim Crow (a system that probably every person who is deathly afraid of Sharia law would have supported).

If this is the best the right wing demagogues can offer, I can only repeat my complacency about Chato's fears.

Edited by BDS, 12 January 2011 - 08:00 PM.

[DaveT]

BDS, on 12 January 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

A couple of points:  First, “Warning about” Sharia law is not identical to believing that Sharia law is a major threat to America.  Second, people report believing things that they do not, in fact, believe.  Claiming to feel threatened by Sharia law is just a code for xenophobia and patriotism – just like  “believing” that Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya is a code for racism.  

Popular figures with a significant following are just as dangerous and xenophobic whether or not they believe what they say when they say it. If they don't believe what they say, that's not as important as the fact that they speak to thousands of people using emotive, persuasive language that does seem to, as it says on the tin, persuade them.

Islamophobia is often just a veiled form of racism; in Britain it has replaced "Paki-bashing." Well, it's more-or-less the same thing, but one Islamophobia is considered more socially acceptable. Ah, the joys of appropriate linguistics.

So, whether or not Condell et al seriously believe the stuff they say is irrelevant; what's relevant is that impressionable people listen to these people and believe what they say.

Oh, and I hope did you also spot the part where I said that I've seen a great many people seriously advocating the forced repatriation of Muslims to Muslim lands (and many of those saying the Muslim lands should then be nuked). That might not be identicle to fearing Sharia law, but it's much worse; it's like how the KKK don't fear blacks taking over America, because they believe they'll slaughter all the blacks before that happens; however, even with that as a given, your comment about only one or two Americans fearing the imposition of Sharia law is very short of the mark.