In the news...
Washington (CNN) -- Shots fired at a congressman's campaign headquarters. Windows smashed at Democratic offices across the country. A coffin placed on a lawmaker's lawn. Hate-filled voice mail messages left on members of Congress' phone lines.
Those are just some of the incidents reported since the House passed historic health care reform legislation Sunday -- a bill that became the law of the land.
The issue has unleashed a deep-seated anger from those worried about a government takeover of health care, and what they deem as the process being "rammed through" Congress...
Republican House members encouraged protesters outside and inside the House gallery, some of whom carried messages like "Vote no or else" or "If Brown won't stop it, a Browning will" -- a reference to newly elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown accompanied by a silhouette of a pistol.
But the anger has boiled over into physical and verbal threats. Windows have been smashed at Democratic offices in at least three states, and federal agents are investigating whether a cut gas line at the home of a Virginia congressman's brother was related to the lawmaker's yes vote...
======
sigh.
Let's pray for and/or raise concerned thoughts for our nation and our neighbors who are tempted to express their disagreement with violence and threats.
======
UPDATE:
On a related theme to this and to update my earlier post about Glenn Beck, Beck has gone on the attack against Jim Wallis, apparently. Jim Wallis had raised concern about Beck's attack on "social justice" churches and asked Beck if they could sit down and talk things over.
Beck's response?
"So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…"
======
Why are these people just so darned ugly? Why can't they talk things over like adults? Instead, too many like Beck, like these violent protesters, choose to go on the attack. It is tremendously sad. Lord, have mercy on us all. Lord, soften the hearts of those who are so full of hate and bile. Lord, have mercy...
63 comments:
"I could kill George Bush"
Nobel Laureate Betty Williams
Williams quote, in context...
In a speech before 1,000 people Wednesday, Ms. Williams said that violence is a choice and the push for peace takes hard work and commitment.
"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.
Hardly a serious death threat.
And, yet, afterwards...
"My feelings now and again get way ahead of me," Ms. Williams said. "I couldn't kill anybody, but I must confess that I'm extremely angry with the Bush administration and what they have done. To say that was wrong."
I will gladly post any and all apologies from the Teabaggers, the death threat-givers and the violence advocates as they are forthcoming.
How about a denouncement of all violence against Congressmen? (Plus a little perspective on the whole thing.)
By the way, I find it interesting that the CNN report talks about "Windows smashed at Democratic offices" but only "Shots fired at a congressman's campaign headquarters" without noting that it was a Republican who was the target of that act of violence?
And now the denouncement game begins. Sorry, not the denouncement game precisely, since neither Craig nor Doug denounce the violence or inciting to violence, instead they plays an even more cynical game of "I'm rubber you're glue."
If Craig seriously doesn't like Betty Williams quote, you'd think he'd also be able to bring himself to denounce incitements to violence from his end of the political spectrum. But the best he can do is say, "Well, your side does it too!" As if 1) that's true and 2) it would matter if it were true.
I'm not sure I'd expect any sort of ethical standards from someone like Craig who thinks that the sum total of what can be said about ethical behavior is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander..."
Fun.
I didn't think I was all that obtuse, so let me state as plainly as I can; I, personally and vehemently, denounce any and all violence against Congressmen for simply doing their job and voting for something, no matter how awful I find what they voted for. I posted the link precisely because I agreed with that sentiment.
Alan, I hope that's plain and simple enough for you, 'cause I can't make it any plainer or simpler.
But the best he can do is say, "Well, your side does it too!" As if 1) that's true and 2) it would matter if it were true.
#1: It is true.
#2: While it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not these current acts of violence are wrong (which they are), the Left should not feign shock after 8 years of #1.
I know of no serious opponents of Bush who would have had anything but disapproval to give to those sorts of displays, if they were real (nearly half the photos in that link were of one guy, how do we know he was even AT a Bush protest rally and it wasn't a setup photo shot? I've been to plenty of Bush policy protests and never once saw anything approaching that sort of rhetoric - in most of these protests in which I've taken part, it would not be allowed.)
But clearly, those threats were wrong, as most so-called liberals would state clearly. As are these threats this week.
So that we can hopefully avoid this in the future, I will begin all comments going forward with this disclaimer.
I DENOUNCE ALL VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY ANYONE IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING POLITICAL, AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ADEQUATELY DENOUNCING ALL VIOLENCE PRIOR TO THIS. IN THE FUTURE PLEASE CONSIDER ANY AND ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE DENOUNCED.
Dan,
I have consistently denounced violence of all kinds against political opponents. I see no reason to expect less from your side, yet we don't. I find it bizarre that those on the left refuse to acknowledge that there are violent nuts on both sides of an issue, and trying to paint them as anywhere near mainstream doesn't help the issue. So, Dan if you will stop trying to insinuate that these folks are a) all on the right (unless you can provide some proof) and b) that they represent anything other than a fringe group who should not be taken seriously by anyone but law enforcement, I'll continue to denounce them.
Dan, I'm pretty sure you defended Ayers by saying he only blew up stuff, why the apparent double standard?
BTW, Williams (not the only one who said similar things), said the same thing at a different speech without the ha ha just a joke thing. The argument has never been "sauce for the goose", it's always been, "hey libs, lets be consistent and condemn violence on the left as quickly as you do on the right".
But hey, I'm just some nut with no ethics.
Alan, I'm constantly in awe of your ability to make such judgments about me on such scant evidence. It's a gift sweetie, a real gift.
What's now funny is that Craig, playing the role of Arturo, Prince of Irony, in a comment complaining about unclear denouncements, then makes fun of making clear denouncements.
And the merry-go-round continues.
Actually, I was wrong before about calling this a game. It isn't a game. It's a play and you're all acting out your roles beautifully. It's nice to see you've memorized your lines. For other showings of this play, be sure not to miss "Denounce the Islamic Terrorists Now!" which is probably playing in your local newspaper OpEd pages, or its sequel, "Denounce The Killers of Abortionists Now!", another exciting romp through American psychosis by the same people who brought you, "Denounce Sister Souljah Now!"
Shall I tell you all what the next lines of your script will be?
The next scenes of this play are that everyone will 1) find examples of the other side doing what they're condemning, then complain that no one condemned it. Following that, condemnations of those examples will be provided from noteworthy people and/or institutions and then y'all can move to the next scene: arguing about whether or not they constitute appropriately contrite and clear and vigorous condemnations. Then you'll start spinning whether the incitement to violence actually constitutes an incitement to violence or was just taken out of context. And then the talk of double standards, blah, blah, blah.
Oops. Looks like Craig has skipped ahead a couple pages. ;)
Now, what any sane or logical person would do is recognize that the bat-sh*t crazy ramblings of one gun-toatin' mouth-breathing slack-jawed yokel do not necessarily represent the beliefs of everyone who might otherwise agree with him/her on any particular issue. One would think that so-called conservatives, who supposedly believe in something they jokingly call "personal responsibility" would be the first to quit the play entirely and make that statement and move on. But no, they enjoy being on stage too much to do something that reasonable.
In other words, to quote the WOPR from WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."
But, as long as you guys are going to play out your parts, thinking your roles have any real relevance or importance, I'm more than happy to take potshots and heckle from the cheap seats. Because unlike those of you who not only play your parts with gusto, but also aren't clever enough to see the irony of doing so, I believe that our national discourse ought to be better than "Gotcha!!"
"Alan, I'm constantly in awe of your ability to make such judgments about me on such scant evidence. It's a gift sweetie, a real gift."
Still playing the same role, I see. At least you're consistent. See, at this point I could simply say, "Pot, meet kettle." But since that would simply incite you to stage another one of your silly productions, I'll just point you to my comment above which covers that little "Gotcha" perfectly too.
And stop hitting on me, perv.
"I DENOUNCE ALL VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY ANYONE IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING POLITICAL, AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ADEQUATELY DENOUNCING ALL VIOLENCE PRIOR TO THIS. IN THE FUTURE PLEASE CONSIDER ANY AND ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE DENOUNCED."
Damn, it looks like Al's got everyone all figured out. He's just too smart for all the rest of us "slack jawed gun totin' yokels" what with all that sophication and all. Don't worry your pretty little head sweetie, you are most definately not my type, and I'm quite sure I'm not yours;)
"Now, what any sane or logical person would do is recognize that the bat-sh*t crazy ramblings of one gun-toatin' mouth-breathing slack-jawed yokel do not necessarily represent the beliefs of everyone who might otherwise agree with him/her on any particular issue"
Except when someone writes a blog post and seems to be lumping everyone he disagrees with in with the few. Oh, wait, that is insane and illogical... never mind.
"The issue has unleashed a deep-seated anger from those worried about a government takeover of health care, and what they deem as the process being "rammed through" Congress..."
Yes it has released anger and fustration. The vast majority of which is being channeled into wholly approprite protests and increased poloitical activism. Why is that a problem? Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to speak their minds? During the prelude to the Iraq war, the left said that disagreement with the govt. was patriotic. Would you stop these patriots from expressing themselves? Are you insinuation that the bullet through Cantors window was fired by someone on the right? Why do you define your opponents by the fringe?
Sorry, for venting a little, delete it if you want.
Craig...
I find it bizarre that those on the left refuse to acknowledge that there are violent nuts on both sides of an issue
You must not be paying attention, for this something that I consistently do. And I'll do it again here, so you can see it clearly:
Too many on BOTH sides embrace violence and threatening behavior against those with whom they disagree.
Okay?
Craig...
Yes it has released anger and fustration. The vast majority of which is being channeled into wholly approprite protests and increased poloitical activism. Why is that a problem?
It's not a problem at all. And, again, in case you have missed the many times I have said such things...
I am sure the majority of folk on the Right are reasonable, non-violent people who only wish to see ethical and responsible gov't, as are the majority of folk on the Left.
Will you be acknowledging the same for those whom you perceive to be Left of you?
So, I post things like this post NOT to lump the majority of conservative folk (you know, like my own dear beloved family members and my own sorry self in many ways and in times past) in with the violent thug types.
I post it because it saddens me to see it and because I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left. When was the last time a Quaker or a Mennonite or a Hippy went into a church and killed someone because they didn't like their politics?
While some people on the Left may say inappropriate things, especially at protest marches, I see little evidence in the real world that they are a physical threat to anyone. I'm less convinced of that for a few on the Right. And the Glenn Becks of the world seem to specialize in stirring up the sort of vitriol that helps lead the deranged few to violence.
For that reason, it is especially important for the reasonable ones to take a stand and clearly and frequently enunciate that such violence is unequivocally wrong.
Some folk over at your friend's blog are talking about that very possibility this week, Craig. Have you made it clear to them that this is not acceptable and that such talk will only set your cause BACK?
Except, of course, the incident at Eric Cantor's office was a stray bullet fired in to the air happened to break a window in the building where Cantor's office is located. Not quite the same thing as one teabag blogger in Alabama sending the message out to break the windows of the offices of Democratic Congress members and suddenly . . . there are broken windows! Not quite the same as death threats placed to Democratic Congress members. In fact, it isn't anything at all but an accident; the Democrats are facing what amounts to low-level political terrorism and Craig dredges up an old quote from one person a while back.
Color me unimpressed.
Also, I don't remember Dan saying commenters on this blog were responsible for the violence. That's another thing I find amusing. Dan is writing about the very real threats and acts of violence and all you guys take it as a personal slap. Protesting that much would make one wonder . . .
I DENOUNCE ALL VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY ANYONE IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING POLITICAL, AND APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ADEQUATELY DENOUNCING ALL VIOLENCE PRIOR TO THIS. IN THE FUTURE PLEASE CONSIDER ANY AND ALL POLITICAL VIOLENCE DENOUNCED.
GKS,
My reference to Cantor's office window was in the context of the original article. CNN and Dan left out the fact that at least one window was of a Republican. Creating the impression that Dems were the victims and Repubs were the perps.
Since no one is saying that Dan said the commenter on his blog were responsible for the violence, I'm not sure I see what you are responding to.
It does seem that Dan and others are quite content to lump an incredible wide swath of folks under some simplistic pejorative labels. It also seems as though many on the left are quick to broad brush condemn anyone on the right, while making excuses for those on their own side who engage in the same type of tactics.
For example, I heard nothing of this sort condemning the folks who were arrested with a bunch of Molotov cocktails that they planned to use at the RNC.
So, can we leave it at there are fringe folks on both sides who go too far, but the fringe folks don't define the movement.
Dan,
"Will you be acknowledging the same for those whom you perceive to be Left of you?"
I have acknowledged this multiple times and fail to see how repeating such moves anything forward.
BTW,
The proper word is totin' it is of course a derivative of tote. Toatin is of course a derivative of the word toat referring to the handle on a joiners plane. Which obviously makes no sense.
Us rednecks have to salvage a little pride where we can;)
I post it because it saddens me to see it and because I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left.
So the Earth Liberation Front isn't a left-wing group? Or perhaps it's not dangerous?
When was the last time a Quaker or a Mennonite or a Hippy went into a church and killed someone because they didn't like their politics?
Well, your original post didn't restrict examples of violence to just church-related, so perhaps that's what you intended. But the CNN article you quoted didn't seem to have that restriction.
But I'm detecting a blind spot here. This isn't a "both sides do it and condemn them all" post; you're specifically quoting news articles reporting on violent protests by those on the right, and having the audacity to say that you don't have this at all on the left? Really?
I will grant you the obligatory distancing from environmental nuts, because I'm sure you would have nothing to do with the violence they've done. But "we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left"?
Really?
Craig...
It does seem that Dan and others are quite content to lump an incredible wide swath of folks under some simplistic pejorative labels.
Oh, really? You mean the "wide swath" of people who advocate violence and threats? Yes, I DO group those folk together under the category of loonies and dangerous nutcases. Where do YOU put them?
Dan,
I lump folks who resort to violence to the fringes where they belong. I don't however try to tar all of those who might be on the same general political side with as broad a brush as you do.
For example, you and others are quick to lump anyone who has attended at Tea Party rally or similar event as "teabaggers". It is,of course, easy and intellectually lazy to lump such a broad group of people into one neat little pejorative. The problem is it's not accurate. One could even say that since the vast majority of folks who have attended these events have never participated in the practice of "teabagging", that referring to them as "teabaggers" would constitute either lying, gossip, or slander.
So maybe it would be more productive to back off the name calling and deal with specifics.
But, it's your blog and your friends,
Craig...
I don't however try to tar all of those who might be on the same general political side with as broad a brush as you do.
I REPEAT:
I post things like this post NOT to lump the majority of conservative folk (you know, like my own dear beloved family members and my own sorry self in many ways and in times past) in with the violent thug types.
I post it because it saddens me to see it and because I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left.
That is to say, I'M NOT trying to "tar all" those who disagree me with a broad brush. Read again my comment above, as it is representative of what I have said oftentimes here.
Craig...
For example, you and others are quick to lump anyone who has attended at Tea Party rally or similar event as "teabaggers". It is,of course, easy and intellectually lazy to lump such a broad group of people into one neat little pejorative. The problem is it's not accurate.
I used the term "teabaggers" as a humorous way of describing the Tea Party-goers. I think those people (or at least the ones that get quoted in the media - the Sarah Palin nutso types) DO INDEED tar with a wide brush, painting ridiculous accounts of those they disagree with (totalitarians, fascists, etc, etc).
These people do not know how to hold civil conversations when they gather as a group and so, I DID refer to them using a shortcut phrase based upon their own early comments, if I'm remembering correctly.
So, have I said something inaccurate about the Tea Party Goers (if that's how you prefer I refer to them)?
And why condemn the very mild "name-calling" on my part when you don't stand against it on the part of your pals? Could it be an inconsistency on your part, that it's okay when you all do it, but not okay when others do so?
LOL
"For example, I heard nothing of this sort condemning the folks who were arrested with a bunch of Molotov cocktails that they planned to use at the RNC."
Or
"I will grant you the obligatory distancing from environmental nuts, because I'm sure you would have nothing to do with the violence they've done. But "we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left"?"
Thank you both for proving me right.
"And why condemn the very mild "name-calling" on my part when you don't stand against it on the part of your pals? Could it be an inconsistency on your part, that it's okay when you all do it, but not okay when others do so?"
And this would be the same argument, just a different topic. It will go exactly the same way, with Craig whining about "name-calling" and then being shown to be a hypocrite by tolerating it himself, and then he'll provide absurd rationalizations and blah, blah, blah, blah.
But more amusing is Craig's insistence that this isn't just a play he's performing. I give you the benefit of the doubt here, Craig. That is, I believe you're actually smart enough to know that's what you're doing, but aren't mature enough to stop. The alternative is that you're just not clever enough to realize your part in the play.
"He's just too smart for all the rest of us"
Gee Craig... getting snippy because I know the play you're playing? Did I take the wind out of your sails by predicting every comment you've made in this thread?
Now, now Craig. You can't complain about grouping people together and then do it yourself. To be accurate I don't think I'm smarter than the rest of you all.
Just you.
Dan,
"These people do not know how to hold civil conversations when they gather as a group and so, I DID refer to them using a shortcut phrase based upon their own early comments, if I'm remembering correctly."
I am so glad that you are able to speak for all of "these people". I'm sure "they" appreciate your humorous pejorative.
"So, have I said something inaccurate about the Tea Party Goers (if that's how you prefer I refer to them)?"
Yes.
1. "These people do not know how to hold civil conversations when they gather as a group"
2. By intentionally using the term "teabaggers" you imply that "they" have or are engaging in a certain act.
"And why condemn the very mild "name-calling" on my part when you don't stand against it on the part of your pals? Could it be an inconsistency on your part, that it's okay when you all do it, but not okay when others do so?"
Two reasons.
1. When someone does something similar to you, you immediately start with the lies and slander crap.
2. I have "stood against" name calling by my "pals". However, if you all are determined to engage in this practice all I can do is try (not always successfully) not to engage in name calling.
What I find compelling is not the "name calling" itself. That's just fairly childish. It is the constant claims of slander any time any one "misinterprets" anything you say. So I will repeat. Lets deal in specifics, and move past the silly accusations of lies and slander. Maybe then the we'll stop hearing blathering about some imaginary play.
LOL.
Wow Craig, you're still at it, doing exactly what I said you'd do: "And then the talk of double standards, blah, blah, blah."
Notice how we've now gone down Craig and his cronies' favorite trail? When he can't address the topic, he'll pretend to be offended by something else. Exactly as I predicted.
QED.
"Maybe then the we'll stop hearing blathering about some imaginary play."
Well, you're welcome to stop your blathering any time so we don't have to listen to it.
"I have "stood against" name calling by my "pals"."
Sure. And I know a Nigerian prince who has some money in a bank account for you, Craig.
Oh this is just too much fun not to toss a few coins in...(Oh my, I might live to regret this)...
First: Craig! Knock 'em dead!! (Wait...sorry. I wasn't supposed to say that here, was I?) You make a lot of sense, without getting snagged by the circular arguments. But be careful. That's what they are - circular; designed to never let you score any points, & then circled back on you to try & bury you w/ your own words.
Second: Dan friend, even though you claim that you're not categorizing those on the Right as --let's see, what did Alan say? That's right! "gun-toatin' mouth-breathing slack-jawed yokels" , the tone of these comments here belies your attitude w/ the ever-so-slightly veiled condescension. (Not worth mentioning Mr. Alan's crass attempts to belittle Craig & thereby boost his argument. He doesn't even have the grace to veil it.)
Third: Dan, Dan, Dan..."I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left."
Are you serious?? Really? No. C'mon, really? ;)
When have you EVER seen a display such as this one on the Right - that wasn't immdiately excoriated & battered down by the entire MSM?
What about the major market film that depicted the murder of a sitting American president and not "denounced" by ANYONE in the film industry??? How's that for inciting VIOLENCE??
Or what about the churches that were attacked just because somebody felt entitled, since their guy won the election?
Please, Dan. You're smarter than that (just 'cause I know), & I had hoped you were willing to be a bit more honest - with yourself, at least.
(forgot to 'sign up' for comment feed...)
Welcome to my site, Susannah. I don't have much time to respond this week, but quickly...
Are you serious?? Really? No. C'mon, really? ;)
Yes. You cite some examples of a few liberals acting up with violent words and symbolic actions, but what your examples AREN'T doing is showing that there is any serious problem in the real world with liberals going around killing people for ideological reasons, as opposed to the several real world examples of those doing so from the Right.
Yes, of course there are some on the Left who have spoken about violence and hinted at violence as in your Palin example, but what is different is that there aren't those acting out on those nutty words. That's the difference of which I speak.
What those on the Right need to be doing is saying plainly, "NO, those who are advocating deadly violence to solve our problems with those on the Left we disagree with are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. We wholly and completely REJECT such words and actions. NO. We REJECT calls for armed rebellion against our nation. We REJECT acts of violence and intimidation against our representatives."
Just that. That's all I'm saying. And that it's a shame that these sorts of incidents have happened and that some of us are concerned that there may be more. All the more reason for us all to unite - Left AND Right - against this sort of violence.
Are you with me?
Dan~ Please. Let's be honest with one another. You spend lots of energy shaping your arguments to give 'your people' a pass.
While there are fringes on each side - as you've admitted, & I concur - you dismiss my 'examples' out of hand b/c they don't quite register on some hard-core-violence-meter that you've got stashed somewhere.
The examples I gave point to pervasive, systemic, hard core attitudes that are dismissed, or encouraged, or even rewarded by the vast majority of those who hold power in the media. THOSE are not a 'few on the fringes.' Those are the people who have the power to shape the attitudes of an entire nation, the world, even. They are the people whom we ought to be able to trust to be responsible with attitudes as important as violence against women.
(Did you even read my piece on Sarah-Palin-in-effigy? If you did, I do NOT understand why you give the media a pass on that. Do you have a daughter? I do.)
The media's misuse of their power is disgusting. It may not register on your 'meter.' It's certainly 'soft violence' that's worse than what the fringes do. It is slowly killing the soul of our culture. THAT's our problem - it's deep, it's hard core, & worst of all it's serpentine, b/c it gets a pass. I will NOT give it a pass. Are you with me?
And speaking of responsibility (Craig), a Nobel Laureate ought to hold herself in more esteem, & her influence to a HIGHER level of responsibility than Ms. Betty Williams. And yet, you give her a pass, too! "Hardly a serious death threat."
Dan, I'm a writer - not a poet, but a writer. Of ANYBODY who knows the power & weight of precisely chosen, well-timed words, it's a Poet! She does NOT get a pass from me, either.
As for this:
"...those who are advocating deadly violence to solve our problems...are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG...We REJECT calls for armed rebellion against our nation. We REJECT acts of violence and intimidation against our representatives."
Yes, I'm with you.
(Please. Think about what I said in the previous comment. It's not a Right/Left issue. Thank you.)
1. Yes, read the Sarah Palin/effigy piece.
2. Yes, I have a daughter.
3. Yes, sometimes people on both sides say bad things.
4. No, we don't have a serious problem with Leftwingers going around actually killing, harming or threatening people.
5. Yes, we have a small problem with some Rightwingers doing so.
6. There is some concern amongst many that this might be a growing trend of this existing problem on the Right. When more and more are talking about the need for armed revolution, that is a problem.
7. Will you clearly denounce those who are calling for armed revolution against the US?
Dan~
First - "No, we don't have a serious problem with Leftwingers going around...harming or threatening people." (As in my last two comments, I beg to differ. The systemic problem is worse.) Did you see my third link two comments ago? I reference the Leftwingers who attacked churches after Obama won, sent envelopes of white powder to people, etc. They get a pass too, I suppose? They were just expressing their exuberance, right?
1. I answered your question already - using your words.
2. You've ignored the very serious point I've made, making me think you consider it invalid.
3. You haven't answered my question, which leads me to believe you're being dismissive.
4. Unless there's something I've missed, I - myself - haven't heard any call for armed revolution. You continue to speak of gathering threat, & I assume you're honest that you've actually heard reference to such.
5. So I'll ask you another question - where have you heard this (Huff Post? Young Turks? Andrew Sullivan? Bill Maher? Janean Garafolo? Michael Moore?) From whom? When? How 'serious' a threat do you actually believe it is (think Nobel Poet Laureate).
6. I've answered your question. It was a cinch. Will you answer mine: I will NOT give it a pass. Are you with me?
Perhaps you have not read me enough to know that I am a pacifist. So, of course, I do not give "a pass" to any advocating serious violence.
Now, perhaps you can recognize how - for a pacifist like myself or Williams - to refer to seeing someone dead, it is quite an ironic threat, not intended seriously but to make a point. Williams' point, it seems to me, is that we recognize that desire to strike back against our perceived enemies. The wish to see our enemies dead, even, is a common wish to humanity.
The Psalmist would often pray for horrible violence against his enemies. The difference is, for those who lean towards being peaceamakers/pacifists, is that we recognize that such a wish - while entirely human and natural - is ultimately not going to bring any satisfaction. Williams seems to clearly be making this point, in context.
So, yes, it IS a wrong to advocate violence as some on both the left and right do. AND, it is a wrong to commit deadly violence as too many on the Right have done these last few years and, if any on the Left have done so, for them, too.
So, the VANDALISM done by some on the Left, the SENDING OF POWDER - if it's a real instance - the VAGUE THREATS are all wrong, no matter who is doing them. But all of these pale in contrast with the ACTUAL violence of entering churches with guns and killing folk for ideological reasons, which has happened at least twice now. In contrast with the killing at the Holocaust museum or the bombing in Oklahoma, the abortion clinic killers, etc, etc. THESE actual instances of violence, combined with increasingly violent sounding rhetoric are why I have more concern about those on the extreme Right.
I am glad to hear that we share that concern.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As to where I have heard such ravings, I would ask if you're aware of the arrests last week of several militia members (Right wing, of course) who were planning acts of violence?
Or, you could look as close as some bloggers who have frequented here. On Marshall Art's blog, for instance, while HE has denounced such behavior (and good for him), several of his buddies, like Elashley, Bubba and Mark, HAVE suggested that we may be getting close to the time for armed rebellion. I don't really want to link to them to provide them support, but you can certainly google them.
Susannah, I would point to your own words...
And it can be fought. And it can be defeated. Will we cower & fall into despair, as some colonists did? Thank God they didn't. And thank God we have their same fighting spirit within us.
Your post "PRELUDE TO A REVOLUTION" references the colonists WHO TOOK ARMS against their gov't with a "fighting spirit."
Do you not see how it SOUNDS LIKE you're hinting at armed rebellion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan~ Of course I know you're a pacifist!
1. You're still ignoring my point about systemic soft violence in the Leftist media, which is killing the soul of our nation.
2. Systemic soft violence : far more insidious & influential than extremists on either side. If you insist on hiding behind your pacifism, & thus giving this a pass, I call you out as disingenuous.
3. I've never heard of the bloggers you mention, & I won't google them. I've seen no reports of militia advocating violence, but it's hardly surprising - it's what militia means, they're extremists after all, hardly mainstream Right.
4. Thank God in heaven for the fighting spirit of our forefathers. Without them, we would all still be paying taxes to the motherland. Instead, they FOUGHT a controversial, horrible, bloody war - because they believed there were some things worth fighting for: our God given right to freedom being the most important. (Thanks be to God they weren't all Quakers!) All pacifism aside, Dan, there are some things worth waging war over (see Revelation 12: the armies of Heaven itself wage WAR over our salvation from the Evil one.)
5. Ever read Born Fighting, by the good VA Democrat, Jim Webb? VERY enlightening.
6. I believe what we have here is a philosophical difference of opinion, friend.
7. "And it can be fought. And it can be defeated. Will we cower & fall into despair, as some colonists did? Thank God they didn't. And thank God we have their same fighting spirit within us.
So much for nuanced understanding... If it sounds to you like I'm calling for violence, then you'll to find it anywhere, Dan.
My post serves as a reminder - as does Jim Webb's book - that we come from independent-minded, tenacious people, & we'd do well to dig deep & remember those from whence we come.
Alan, sir~ ...blah, blah, blah, blah...
My name is Susannah, not Suzanne.
"I'd think you'd understand how to read as well."
Dan & I are having a respectful discussion. You're just being insulting.
"My name is Susannah, not Suzanne.
I'd think you'd understand how to read as well."
You have mistaken my lack of caring for illiteracy.
If you were having a respectful dialogue you wouldn't accuse Dan of writing something I wrote. ;) Sort of hard to get bent out of shape about me misspelling your name when you can't tell the difference between Dan and me, no?
Your argument as well as Craig's and Doug's boils down to one simple sentence: "But you do it too!"
"But you do it too" isn't the sort of moral axiom on which any mature person would try to build any sort of argument regarding ethical behavior. Instead it is simply an excuse and a rationalization, which leads inevitably to the play acting I predicted in my first comment in this thread. QED.
Yes, I'm mocking the people who think that "But you do it too!" is a reasonable response to threats from either side. Such a response deserves to be mocked.
Classy, Al.
Thanks! :)
If I may set the record straight.
As to where I have heard such ravings, I would ask if you're aware of the arrests last week of several militia members (Right wing, of course) who were planning acts of violence?
You mean these "right wing" nuts?
Most of the indicted militia members accused of being anti-government extremists have active voting records, a check with area voter registration offices showed yesterday.
One is a registered Democrat, and the party affiliations of the rest could not be determined.
Isn't it just a tad early to be saying "Right wing of course"? Stereotypes, anyone? Prejudging, perhaps?
You are correct, Doug. I HAVE jumped to a conclusion that these militia members were right wing-ish, just because I've never heard of militia members that aren't right wing-ish. I still suspect that this is the case.
If it comes to light that these fellas arrested were part of a Left wing militia (regardless of political party), I shall apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
A question: Do you think for a moment that these arrested militia members AREN'T on the right wing/conservative side of things?
Dan:
I thought it likely before, yes, but I think it less likely now. Further, in a post that purports to attribute all violence to the Right, I think you'd be a little more circumspect about claiming this as an example before all the facts are in.
In running down a news link for the previous post, I found this opinion piece noting the same thing; that journalists have been extremely quick to label this as such before all the fact got out. And they are the (alleged) ones who are supposed to be objective. Written on 3/31, DeSeno notes that we really knew nothng about the Hutaree's political leanings, yet they were labelled "right wing" in the liberal media.
American political conservatism, or the “right wing,” is first and foremost (and many would argue exclusively) economic, tracing its commitment to freedom and laissez-faire fiscal policies to the 17th and 18th century enlightenment thinkers whose work led to the founding of America.
In what way then can anyone call Hutaree “right-wing?” Are they Burkean? Lockean? Do they sit ‘round the campfire discussing the finer points of Milton Friedman’s consumption function or the Laffer curve?
Or is Hutaree being Christian what guarantees them the moniker “right-wing?” By that thinking, the leftist media would be averring that no one on the political left is a Christian. Since many Christians voted for Obama, it would be just as dumb to call Hutaree “Obama supporters” as it is to call them “right wing” at this point. But mainstream media only plays dumb when it comes to mislabeling violence as “right wing,” which they do frequently.
And he gives some high-profile examples.
While the allegation of “right-wing” is allowed to spill out of the mouths of America’s mainstream media anytime the see camouflage and a full magazine, never do they refer to terrorists as “left wing extremists,” even when they are.
Andrew Joseph Stack flew his airplane into the IRS building in Texas and left behind a 6 page rant that was anti-capitalist and pro-communist, but the words “left wing extremist” never flashed in Anderson Cooper’s pea brain.
James Wenneker von Brunn committed the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, and was a stated Socialist who hated Christianity and planned attacks against right wing media groups. Yet no one invited Mark Potok on TV to pretend to connect dots from von Brunn to the Democratic National Committee. Instead the media just called him a right-wing extremist.
So your propensity to label it all "right-wing" is, I would guess, partly due to the fact that the news media you trust performs similar conclusion-jumping all the time. What I'm saying is, at this point in time, I think it's very premature to be making them an example that proves your rule "I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left".
Alan:
And therein lies the problem with the faulty analogy you've been clinging to. It assumes that the inital post was simply denouncing a particular violent act by someone on the Right, followed by a "but you do it, too." And it all follows from that. But your premise is wrong, and thus your whole "script".
The initial post suggested, and later comments from Dan verify, that this was not simply pointing out one violent act by the Right. It was accusing the Right of being the only point on the political spectrum to have nuts who carry out deadly violence. To give examples of where this is clearly not true is not excuse-mongering; it speaks directly to Dan's point.
So your opening act is utterly flawed, making the results more farce than anything else.
"So your opening act is utterly flawed, making the results more farce than anything else."
Wrong again, Doug. Seriously, why continue to demonstrate your continued wrongness? LOL
Show me where I stated that Dan was correct in attributing, as you allege he has done, all threats of violence and violent acts to the Right?
Oh, wait, I didn't. So you're wrong again, and simply making more silly rationalizations.
In fact, I haven't mentioned either side specifically. Actually I have clearly said this is a stupid play put on by both sides. I know this comment thread has been going on for some time, but perhaps you may remember when I wrote, "The next scenes of this play are that everyone will 1) find examples of the other side doing what they're condemning, then complain that no one condemned it."
Notice I didn't say that only the Left or only the Right act out their little roles in this little play.
And I said, "Denounce the Islamic Terrorists Now!" which is probably playing in your local newspaper OpEd pages, or its sequel, "Denounce The Killers of Abortionists Now!", another exciting romp through American psychosis by the same people who brought you, "Denounce Sister Souljah Now!"
Two examples of the Right's knee-jerk need to blame and one clear example of the same stupidity on the Left.
Nice try though. If, like you, other readers weren't paying attention, they might have bought your argument for a moment. Glad to set them, and you, straight.
Turns out I'm still the only person on this thread who has ever mentioned the concept of *personal responsibility* in these threats and actions, rather than blame everyone else in an effort to score cheap political points.
So as long as you all want to blame the Right or the Left, you're still just playing your parts, and doing so spectacularly. But don't for a minute, Doug, think I'm playing along. Like Statler and Waldorf, I'm up in the cheap seats heckling the stupidity on the stage. ;)
Doug said...
Further, in a post that purports to attribute all violence to the Right, I think you'd be a little more circumspect about claiming this as an example before all the facts are in.
Alan said...
So as long as you all want to blame the Right or the Left, you're still just playing your parts
Let me be clear:
1. There IS inappropriate violent talk that comes from BOTH/ALL sides. And when the Left, Right or Other advocates violence against those who disagree with them, they are WRONG. Left, Right or otherwise.
2. There are violent acts that happen from all sides and when that happens, all sides that engage in it are WRONG. It is WRONG for the environmental terrorists to blow up cars or for others to vandalize buildings or throw bricks through windows. ALL of this is wrong, whether it's happening from the Left, Right or otherwise. And these non-deadly acts of violence occur all around on the spectrum of American politics.
3. What I HAVE said is that we have had, in the real world, an on-going problem with those on the American Right engaging in acts of deadly violence in these past few years. We have not had a corresponding problem with deadly acts from the American Left.
Need I remind you of the List?
* The von Brunn attack at the Holocaust Museum
* The Roeder attack at a church, killing Dr Tiller
* The Adkisson attack at a liberal church in Tennessee
* Richard Poplawski who attacked several police officers in Pennsylvania
* The Rudolph abortion bombings
* The McVeigh bombing in Oklahoma
In the last 15 years or so, we seem to have developed a breed of angry young white conservatives who think it is okay to kill to defend their cause. I can't think of a corresponding list of American Liberals. If so, by all means, provide it.
The closest I can come is the Unabomber, but he was critical of the Left and did not self-identify as such. Beyond that, he is a bit further back than the recent spate of killings and grumblings, the ones that are giving rise to concern about possible violence coming from the Right.
Who else? Anyone?
Equating Muslim extremists with a Left wing agenda is not really believable, if that's what you're thinking.
Doug~ BRAVO! Bravo
Dan~
"...angry young white conservatives... I can't think of a corresponding list of American Liberals. If so, by all means, provide it."
I'm STILL WAITING for you to address what I detailed - quite thoroughly: systematic, pervasive violence perpetrated by the vastly-Leftwing media. You're mute, silent.
All you're capable of is picking out isolated 'extremists' -whose acts are heinous, & whose punnishment our entire society sanctions. Yet you ignore the insidious soul-killing system; and so does the rest of our culture - while it eats us alive from the inside out.
THAT 'list' of culprits is responsible for the decline, demoralization, deadening, desensitization from violence that our families, schools, churches experience today.
When even professed believers refuse to acknowledge the Evil one, right under our own noses, I throw in the towel. I'm done here.
Lord, Have Mercy - indeed.
Susannah...
I'm STILL WAITING for you to address what I detailed - quite thoroughly: systematic, pervasive violence perpetrated by the vastly-Leftwing media. You're mute, silent.
I have to say that I don't have the slightest idea what in the world you're talking about Susannah. I've quite clearly stated that any violence by anyone is wrong. What "systemic, pervasive violence" are you speaking about??
I suspect that you're not talking about anything solid, because it sounds a bit like you're ranting about nothing, but by all means, explain yourself if you have something real you're talking about.
For the record, "the Leftwing media" has committed no violence of which I am aware. None. Zip. Nada.
Perhaps if you would provide a list of instances of "leftwing media" violence - or even ONE incident - you might have some credibility. As it is, you sound a bit wacky stating things like that.
See my very first comment.
In the last 15 years or so, we seem to have developed a breed of angry young white conservatives who think it is okay to kill to defend their cause. I can't think of a corresponding list of American Liberals. If so, by all means, provide it.
You listed one in your list of "angry white conservatives"; von Brunn. I just quoted a description of his leanings. And, interestingly in the same post, Andrew Stack who flew plane into that IRS building. Again, I understand that your inclination to consider these "right-wing" is likely, in part, shaped by the news outlets you listen to, but I think we can rise above CNN journalistic standards.
...and my second comment is QUITE clear about what I'm speaking. I am certainly NOT 'ranting about nothing.'
You repeatedly ignored my points - refusing to answer my direct questions ("are you with me re: NOT giving the media a pass?), though I implored your response. Dan, are you just not paying attention so you can write me off - so many comments later - as "sounding wacky"?
Not a very gracious host, I must say. But, you're following the Leftist playbook rather well: 'ignore, dismiss, belittle; repeat.' (Just some thoughts - for those who have ears to hear.)
Doug~ Bravo again! Keep unwrapping Dan's neat little package. (I'm leaving it to you. He's obviously not listening to me, & I'm done banging my head on a wall.)
I wrote, "The next scenes of this play are that everyone will 1) find examples of the other side doing what they're condemning, then complain that no one condemned it. "
Suzannah wrote, "I'm STILL WAITING for you to address what I detailed - quite thoroughly: systematic, pervasive violence perpetrated by the vastly-Leftwing media. You're mute, silent."
QED. You're playing your part perfectly Suzannah. Thanks for proving my point.
Meanwhile, Doug's comments have degenerated into arguments about who is and who is not right enough or left enough to be pinned to one side or the other. As if that matters.
The only reason to attempt that little maneuver is to attempt to pin blame on an entire group of people (ie. "the left" or "the right") instead of recognizing these people's personal responsibility. Oh, and the notion that if one of these people don't conform to your particular definition, that the whole list is then false.
Someone change the channel. This sitcom is getting boring and predictable. LOL
Susannah, I have to again say that I don't have the slightest idea what you are speaking of and I'm guessing you don't, either. I say that not to be insulting but to raise the question: Have you read what you wrote?
YOU said...
I'm STILL WAITING for you to address what I detailed - quite thoroughly: systematic, pervasive violence perpetrated by the vastly-Leftwing media. You're mute, silent.
You just made and repeated a claim that the "leftwing media" are perpetrating systemic, pervasive violence. I have asked what in the world you are speaking of. WHAT acts of violence have the "leftwing media" committed? You mean, reporting on the news of people misbehaving? That is not an act of violence.
Are you sure that's what you mean, that the "leftwing media" is actually committing acts of violence?? You say "see my first comment," but your first comment is not about the media committing ANY violence. Rather, it is about the media reporting on someone who hung an effigy of Sarah Palin, who vandalized a church and a fictional movie which depicts the murder of an unpopular president.
Those AREN'T acts of violence. They ARE bad behavior, but they aren't acts of violence. How are you defining "acts of violence?" Perhaps you are using a definition other than the one I am using.
When I speak of acts of violence, I'm speaking of acts where one party intentionally physically harms or kills another party.
And, to be clear, you all have not presented any cases of a Left-winger perpetrating such.
What are you talking about?
The media is now being blamed by those on the right for "perpetuating" violence?
What are they doing, beaning people over the head with their microphones? Spraying people in the eyes with their hairspray?
I hereby condemn such actions, though I've never heard of them happening. But I'd love to see Barbara Walters chasing someone down the street brandishing a legal pad.
Alan:
Meanwhile, Doug's comments have degenerated into arguments about who is and who is not right enough or left enough to be pinned to one side or the other. As if that matters.
Well, it only does, in the context of this discussion, because Dan says it does. "I think we have a problem amongst a SMALL but dangerous portion of the Right that we don't have on the Left." If you have a problem with the left/right labeling, take it up with him.
"If you have a problem with the left/right labeling, take it up with him."
If I did, I would. But since I don't, I won't.
As I've said before, my problem is with the implication that "the bat-sh*t crazy ramblings of one gun-toatin' mouth-breathing slack-jawed yokel" somehow represent the beliefs of everyone who might otherwise agree with him/her on any particular issue.
It is obvious that the only reason to have this argument you all are enjoying so much about which side any particular mouth-breather is on is to assign blame to that side. "But you do it too!" is never a convincing response since it immediately eliminates your moral authority to criticize anyone.
"But you do it too!" is never a convincing response since it immediately eliminates your moral authority to criticize anyone.
If that's what I was saying, you might have a point. But that's not what I'm saying.
I'm responding to the contention by Dan that this does not happen on the Left. I replied that it, in fact, does, and gave examples. That's how discussions are supposed to go, Alan.
"But you do it, too!"
It's not what I was saying, either, Doug. I've quit the discussion here. If you want to go anywhere but in circles, come on over to my piece Primary Perspectives: do over
It really gets good, when 'Purple Voter' gets in on the comments...
Check it out.
(This is my last visit to this post Al, so don't bother. I won't be responding.)
"I'm responding to the contention by Dan that this does not happen on the Left. I replied that it, in fact, does, and gave examples."
And I'm saying the entire enterprise is flawed. The response to such an assertion is not "But you do it too!" but should instead be a reminder about personal responsibility.
I do find it interesting, however, that many conservatives are precisely the folks who want to limit what we can watch on TV (Parents Television Council), or the music we listen to, or the video games we play (remember the religious conservative conniption about Dungeons and Dragons? Or how about conservatives blaming Marylin Manson for Columbine?) because they'll rot our brains and make us worship Satan, etc.
Yet when it comes to the words of Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, they believe that there's no way their words could possibly influence someone to commit violence.
On the other hand, liberals defend freedom of speech and expression, believing as former liberal (turned nut-job conservative) Dennis Miller once remarked, "If your kid is capable of being pushed over the edge by anything Gene Simmons has to say, you're not doing your job as a ****ing parent."
Yet when it comes to political speech, apparently Glenn Beck is a bomb waiting to go off.
Seems a bit inconsistent to me. But then, consistency has never been an important value for any side of politics in this country.
Personally I think if someone is capable of being pushed over the edge by anything Glenn Beck or Caribou Barbie has to say, they're clearly not entirely sane in the first place.
A conversation regarding personal responsibility and the limits of free expression might be useful. "But you do it too!" conversations are not. But they're fun to make fun of, so please continue.
A conversation regarding personal responsibility and the limits of free expression might be useful.
Perhaps, but that's not what the original post by Dan was about.
"But you do it too!" conversations are not. But they're fun to make fun of, so please continue.
And that is not what I said, as already noted.
"Perhaps, but that's not what the original post by Dan was about."
Actually an even worse excuse than "But you do it too!"
Post a Comment