| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Socialism, Scrota and Tea Party Ridicule
Mainstream media personalities have begun making a sport out of ridiculing “tea parties.” If you’re living on Mars, tea parties are spontaneously formed groups of activists disgusted with just about everything the federal government is doing. But in the marble bosom of the socialist salon, teaparties would seem to be the stuff of humor:
- Paul Krugman, who always manages to be both vacuous and demeaning, ridicules tea parties here, saying: “President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.” The tax rate straw man allows Krugman space for more ridicule, I gather.
- David Shuster, an MSNBC fill-in for Keith Olbermann, refers to tea-party activists as “teabaggers” – a term that refers to the practice of a man inserting “his scrotum into another person's mouth in the fashion of a teabag,” according to the Urban Dictionary. Classy. Such commentary makes Ann Coulter look positively effete.
- Lawrence Downes, also of the Grey Lady, writes: “They were a band of like minds bent on dire provocations seldom witnessed in the harborside hamlet on Long Island Sound. It was a day for brandishing signs, shouting imprecations and donning silly clothing: tricorn hats and breeches, bonnets and petticoats. A few carried pitchforks, the better to jab the message home. We good farm folk are fed up and will be silent no more.” I’m pretty sure I saw the Chair of the Department of Political Science at Duke University at our tea party in NC today. Farm folk, indeed.
Granted, there are quite a few characters at these events. But media elitism doesn't help the cause of statism. So keep laughing. I’m sure some of these tea-party folks are disgruntled about kookier things than, oh, unprecedented spending, bailouts of everyone under the sun, punished productivity, corporate welfare, higher taxes, social engineering, evaporating capital, subsidizing irresponsible debtors, destroying the institutions (profit & loss rules) of the free economy, redistributing wealth to whomever puckers up to the ring, and the ocean of debt we’ll leave to our children. Whatever their reasons, it’s a very serious matter to these protestors. (That’s why, for the MSM, I gather there is more than a little discomfort in all these guffaws—more than a little tactic in all the titters.)
Rule number 5 of Saul Alinsky’s 1971 Rules for Radicals?
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
Have you ever noticed the unwillingness of leftish pundits to engage in rational discourse? Most of their commentary falls along a spectrum from snarky to ad hominem. It's rarely intelligent. Even Nobel economists cited above. One can only surmise that a) they don’t have anything rational to say and know they’ll lose a real debate, or b) that they are retreating to ridicule because it is a strategy of desperation. They think If you can make people feel stupid for attending a tea party, that will dilute their will. There’s only one problem with that rationale...
People are coalescing around real principles again. And when you get down to people’s fundamental believes, ridicule won’t get you very far. It’s like trying to attack someone’s religion. Indeed, the Founding Principles are America’s secular religion. So, if you hear the chant “Don’t tread!” You had better listen and listen good… Party on, teabaggers.
- Max Borders's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
ahh... the Northern Redneck Badge of Honor...
It's what WV should have on the back of their pickups.
You're quite busy contradicting yourself, so it might have escaped your attention that it is rather difficult to argue with a perpetuator of prevarications.
Destruction of capital is entirely antithetical to subsidising irresponsible debtors, a point that I'm certain Krugman and Roubini would school you on, were you so foolish as to actually meet them.
It's really quite astonishing how you can talk about destroying the institutions of the free economy, and yet you failed to say a SINGLE word about the far more egregious banning of short selling (oh, except for dear buddy Madoff, he was all right), by the former head of Goldmann Sachs -- Good King Henry Paulson.
And there you have it folks, wit and ire wrapped in ridicule -- all done with cogent responses to rather perplexing arguments! I sincerely doubt he will manage to clarify his way out of this one.
(patronizing? you betcha!)
sorry but the use of "teabag" as a verb
was embraced by Fox and some protesters. It just sounds funny given its testicular meaning. Maybe it's an unfortunate coincidence, but the association it inevitably generates is not my fault!
U want be taken seriously?
You have a bunch of people who won't admit to who caused this mess, the philosophy that caused this mess, and blame Obama for things he hasn't done. Those of us on left are to take you people seriously? Really??
Are U Nuts?
Let's say your neighbor's back yard tiki torch sets your house on fire - therefore "they caused your mess". So now, instead of getting out your trusty garden hose and putting the fire out, you decide "oh WTF, I'll just collect the insurance because after all, I only inherited this fire - I didn't start it!" and you proceed to toss gasoline into various unlit rooms in your home until the whole damned house burns down. When the FD comes to save the rest of the neighborhood and investigate why your home went up in blaze of glory, you're in such a state of denial as to your own contribution to the conflagration that you insist it's your neighbor's fault, certainly not yours, since you only inherited the mess and you wisely tried to "fight fire with fire" (the Keynesian method of combustion control).
Heh...that's a damnably fine analogy if I do say so myself. I will have to apply it the next time some rationally challenged Obama supporter tells me that the POTUS is blameless for sending us careening down the path to bankruptcy that George Bush set us upon originally. Stupid is as stupid does, Sir.
The whole teaparty protest concept is nonpartisan, it's just that many on the Left are too blind to see how we can make common cause together (yet). George Bush was not our friend. Barack Obama is not our friend. The State is most assuredly not our friend. On the left, right and center we are all being attacked equally - it's just that you don't quite see it as your fight yet. Don't worry. In time, you will. Here's a sampler of what's actually being attacked that harms all of us: our next generation's financial freedom, all of our standards of living, everyone's prosperity, national sovereignty, the Constitution, our civil liberties and the quality of our education - and that's just this week.
you had me, but you lost me.
next time cite your damn sources, because the current and historical record says you're wrong on most of that crap...
Fun!
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm
That made no sense whatsoever
Cite my sources for....what, for my opinion? Pfffft! As though you citing the Daily KOS as your source lends credence to yours? I am not responsible for waking you up. Like I said below, I understand blind spots the way the sky understands blue, and it appears to me that you're (a) too smart for the day-to-day stuff and (b) too lazy to research outside the scope of your own narrow interests. Good luck, kid. I still have faith in ya. You'll figure it out eventually.
no, you don't need to cite sources for opinions.
cite 'em for this:
"Here's a sampler of what's actually being attacked that harms all of us: our next generation's financial freedom, all of our standards of living, everyone's prosperity, national sovereignty, the Constitution, our civil liberties and the quality of our education - and that's just this week."
snerk, that is, if you can.
Thanks for articulating clearly
And most especially, thank you for not using the term "let me be clear" in doing so. I vote to place that term on an Overused Watch List immediately.
I'm on a proj deadline today & tomorrow, but will revisit each with documented justification at a later date - prolly in my blog, and when I do I'll link it to ya Baby.
Is a snerk similar to a Sandra Bullock snort a la Miss Congeniality? I hate to admit it but I do those all the time. Alas, they're one of my trademarks®.
when am I ever clear the first time round? ;-)
I'm the chaotic one, the tangential one.
Obama is releasing the memos today. I trust we'll both be praying for zero redaction.
A snerk is a loud snort, delivered with a wolfish grin -- closely allied with Hillary's bark (you know, the one the media endlessly focused on?)
When you think of me, think of Sandra Bullock
...as oposed to Hillary Clinton - unless of course you kick her all the way back to Hillary Rodham, all-American apple-pie libertarian conservative Goldwater Girl. Now that girl was so very, very me.
Nice anology.
If you hadn't responded with yours, I was going to apply my own: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
ex animo
davidfarrar
I like that short version very much
It seems that the Left has accrued a deficit of critical thinking skills. I wish everyone would just detach, kick it up a notch from heightened emotionalism, party brand loyalties and ideological brainwashing but that pretty much describes me perfectly up until late October, 2008, so I'm like an ex-smoker who now wishes that my cohorts would all quit smoking. It takes a lot less effort to just blather on about change than it is to actually implement it. What we see in this administration is not change at all, it's simply an acceleration of the slide into a tightly controlled centralization of power.
guantanamo is closing, the secret prisons are disappearing...
I think there are signs of improvement. There are also very disappointing signs, as well.
It cuts both ways
Max-
I would agree that the "teabagging" ridicule is a bit sophomoric, although, as SeanF points out, it probably should have been anticipated by whoever started calling these events "teabagging parties." I also think it might be a bit disingenuous to pretend that immature humor is a staple only of leftist media personalities. It seems that you've got Maddow, Olbermann, Whoopi Goldberg, Schuster, and Stewart on the left, and the equally vulgar Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Beck on the other. Both sides could probably use a good dose of maturing.
Biff is not the same as the others.
Biff spreads hate
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/12/20241/9086
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/10/14121/0040 (shades of timothy mcveigh?)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/7/122027/9515 (because Obama is Fascism Personified!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/13/231023/182/280/719766
ooh! an elected official speaks!
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001159/
(and I'm not even quoting the guy who was on about the 17 socialists -- with or without Bernie? -- in Congress)
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry...
(does anyone even remember eric rudolph? ask me when the right forgets waco)
Blame
Bush gets some blame. Obama gets some blame. Government gets just about all of it. (See you at the party.)
Really? some blame? That's mighty white of ya Max.
Who gets the blame for doubling the 224 year cumulative National Debt from 5.5 to nearly $11 Trillion in just 8 years - thereby hamstringing the incoming Admin's ability to deal with the financial meltdown handed to them without pushing the debt envelope out of all proportion?
And whose Administration governed over 20+ months of recession out of a total of 96 in office and refused to admit there was one for almost a year? (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html)
And where goes the blame for turning a surplus and 22 million created jobs into record deficits, two recessions and the worst job creation record since records have been kept? (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-r...)
And which Administration was it that on April 28th 2004, allowed the SEC to scrap the Brokerage Capital Requirement rules for CEO Paulson at Goldman Sachs (later Sec of Giving Away the Treasury) and the other majors - resulting in 40-1 leverages on MBS and CDS crap paper? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html)
Am I sensing a pattern here?
I think you should reconsider your blame split: because I am not seeing how being handed this Hooverite economic clusterf*ck (i.e. 8 years complete lack of oversight + profligate spending + tax cuts in war time) comes with substabtial blame attached. Especially when we are less than 100 days into a new Admin.
Furthermore, I can not even imagine the convoluted logic that one would have to cook up to blame all on "government" - thereby absolving Comrade Paulson and "the market" for such actions as making absurd bets on 40-1 leveraged MBSs with their shareholder's 401K money either.
No teabagging for me
I think it's awesome that this last desperate gasp of the Old Right to achieve political relevance got tagged with such an appropriately ridiculous moniker. The demented duo of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have made me laugh for the first and probably only time.
It is getting a little old watching the more culturally conscious members of the media making fun of the clueless wingnuts, though. This is just too easy.
Charlotte Has A Teabag Situation...
Teabagging, as explained on Sex And The City
The Spirit of '73
It’s not out-of-the-question that the 2009 TEA party participants could someday be regarded by history as patriots who made a difference- same as 1773. This sort of public outrage might be just what’s needed to break through the media’s manufactured reality.
And you can believe that Obama and the left are plenty scared of the TEA party movement- how else to explain the dubious timing of his "everything is under control" speech on the economy, and (on the same day before the protests) the wierd DHS report warning of "right-wing" radicals and their propensity to violence? Now ACORN is deploying thugs to confront these protests at the street-level? What's next, bring-in the Crips? Or the next year, the mandatory Obama youth corps or his new, private militia? Barack Obama is rapidly liquidating everything that made this country great… and needs to be put back-on-his-heels with a major embarrassment that puts an end to the myth that everybody just loves Barack and his wacked-out agenda… because millions of us DON’T. http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
you watch glenn beck a lot, don't you?
Acorn is a bunch of geeks. HOUSING geeks. Not coalminers... not even kids on a football team.
SORRY
...it's out of the question now.
Epic FAIL.
If you and your irrational rants...
are "The Next Right"??? Then the Democrats will be in power even longer than I thought.
Because if this FoxoMatic Type 2 delusional paranoia (Obama has private militias? that's seriously whack) represents the majority and focus of the Republican party... then even the remarkable proclivity of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot won't get them out of power anytime soon.
p.s.
Watch Conspiracy Theory - it's a great movie - and you could learn some pointers, like how to make a TFH before the Obamarays get through the walls.
Pathetic
From the DC photos, it looks like a few hundred, possibly a few thousand. Compared to a "liberal" protest that can put half a million people on the Mall with no assistance from a TV network, this is pathetic. Anti-war marches in 2003 and a women's rights march in 2004 had bigger CLEANUP CREWS than the number turning out for teabagging today.
Whose great idea was it to demonstrate the pathetic comparison between the small number of conservative "activists" who turn out after weeks of publicity, and the liberal marchers who outnumber them ten or twenty to one in marches on just about any issue they care about? You are going to see comparison photos of this event and any number of liberal protests posted on every liberal blog for the next week, and the contrast will not be pretty.
Millions more people than turned out today turned out in 2003 to protest invading Iraq. How did they do with that?
You bring up an excellent point
Conservatives are very new to the protesting arena, and are still feeling their way around. There are several requirements for bringing in larger crowds, not the least of which is extremely strong emotional content. The people who were against the war had a great deal more commitment and strength of feeling about that issue than do today's tea partiers. Another aspect is the professional activism component - community organizers, union organizers, professional political activists, ward bosses, etc. Transporting a large, committed, organized crowd to one location (or several strategic locations) requires communication, time, staffing and money.
I like the fact that the teaparty people create their own hand made signs, they're not stamped out at the silk screen factory. That's a great touch. Having the kids there raises the emotional content and brings home the point that it is the next generation who's going to inherit the mess we've all inherited (and are continuing to create). So they're doing a few things right, including exploring the use of social networking as a communication platform.
Give 'em time, I think they'll get better. There's a learning curve to this, but if conservatives are a sort of "sleeping giant" and they've been awakened by an overreaching State, especially a State which produced a Homeland Security document seemingly designed specifically to marginalize and repress anyone who disagrees with its policies, well...we could be in for some vastly interesting and unexpected developments here. Could a major conservative/libertarian underground develop? Who knows?
But the most fascinating aspect of all this to me is that you yourself were one of the most vocal opponents of civil liberties violations of the Bush Administration - which many conservatives now finally recognize as the very violations which set the table for them to now be identified as "potential domestic terrorists", yet you appear to be mocking these somewhat weak attempts to support the Constitution and civil liberties. Maybe you should get out there and show 'em how to do it - because the same agenda that marginalizes the Right today is going to marginalize the Left tomorrow.
And RisingTide, let's agree that Beck isn't exactly a poster child for libertarian perfection but if you don't see the slightest little inkling of a fascism trend in action here, I'm gonna start thinking you're too smart to deal with the day to day stuff. Speaking as a former loyal Republican who had a blind spot the size of a Mack Truck during the Bush years, I know a little about how that works, and I recognize it in you guys when I see it. Do not trust the people in power today any more than you did last year, and do not be so hasty to condemn your fellow citizens are are finally beginning to wake up from the sleepwalk-that-precedes-the-nightmare.
The Teabaggers are protesting for the civil liberties(suddenly)?
Leaving aside the strawman argument, Conservative bloggers must really identify themselves with the most extreme elements of the right wing. The Department of Homeland Security declassified report on right wing extremism can be found here. I am citing Daily Kos, but it is well worth reading:
The report is on white supremacists, right wing militias, and those who support violence like Timothy McVeigh. Such extremism is a real threat and it is not surprising that the Department of Homeland Security has seen a reason to describe this threat. My bet is that somewhere they also have reports on violent extremists of the far left.
The Republicans and much of the conservative blogosphere has become quite extreme, but I still wouldn’t lump them in with the type of extremists the report is aimed at. The report doesn’t talk about conservatives, Republicans, or even conservative bloggers. For some reason, however, conservative bloggers seem to identify with them. I first saw mention of this in The Liberty Papers. Michelle Malkin has picked it up with the paranoid title Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real. Pamela Geller writes this “is the fascist blueprint to create a police state and legalize gulags.”
There is certainly a lot of paranoia on the right. For an example, see David Weigel’s gun show report. It is certainly reasonable for people in Homeland Security to be concerned about such people should they support violence. A report describing extremists and warning of the risk of violence is far different from advocating suppression of their speech or of rounding them up in gulags.
I fail to understand why the right, rather than seeing the extreme right which advocates violence as a problem, sees this report as being about them. I certainly don’t feel any similar affinity towards extremists of the far left and would have no concerns about a similar report on left wing extremists.
Steven Taylor has the best title for a response on this issue: You’re so Vain, You Probably Think this Report is about You (or, so Paranoid…)
Jonathan Chait also wonders about this:
Typical
Just in time:
FoxNews: DHS Report Was 'Requested By The Bush Administration'
Anyone who's not married to an ideology
would be able to at least entertain a discussion over whether all the alleged liberty-challenging activities of the Bush Administration set the stage perfectly for the Obama Administration. My case in point is the fact that Obama is continuing the Bush policies rather than reversing them. He did a little sleight-of-hand to throw a few bones to the Left, but many of them have become as alarmed as those in the Center and the Right. I don't find this report surprising in the least. In fact, I'd be much more surprised to discover the table hadn't been set by Bush. This allows Obama and Bush to keep up the theatrically distracting "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. Meet the New Boss, kids. Guess what. He's the same as The Old Boss. Time to wake up now?
You are confusing DHS
You are confusing DHS report with FISA issue. The Leftwing blogosphere has been very much critical of Obama on the latter, and on many of his promises of change. I highly recommomend you read OpenLeft.com to get a clear picture of Left's criticisms of Obama administration. It happens at Daily Kos too. But with all the Right Wing noise you would only bother to hear the Left's reactions to such.
Here's a perfect example from Open Left:
Secrecy and Obama's Embrace of Bush-ism by: David Sirota Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 15:00
Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that even beyond support for bailouts, the Obama administration's most close mirroring of the Bush administration comes on the issue of secrecy and civil liberties - and he says the behavior will separate the knee-jerk Obama partisans from movement progressives:
Now, sure, Obama may use the powers he's protecting more benevolently than Bush, but Greenwald says that's not the point:
I (obviously) agree with Glenn on this 100%. If we're going to be part of a credible movement, we've got to have a credible and honest discussion about what any administration - Republican or Democrat - is doing. And in the case of these issues of secrecy and civil liberties, the initial moves are not positive.
--Open Left
i'll get back to you with my full post
but conservatives are NOT new to this. ask the folks who were protesting as Obama revoked that Mexico city rule... I remember them from when I was ten...
Could a major conservative/libertarian underground develop?
yup. you might say, it already has. racists, gunsmugglers, Goldmann Sachs (okay, they only rate because they're bribing and blackmailing our elected officials).
What, you didn't want those to make the list?
Y'all economic conservatives are in general too sane/employed to go truly gonzo.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that in 2001, they already published about the same thing from DOE about Liberals and Energy Security. Except, then, liberals have perspective, and don't need to fearmonger. Yes, ELF and shit deserve to be quarantined.
Conservatives? you all come across like loons for thinking that DHS would bother talking about you. The militia types, the ones who wander around town openly carrying guns... yeah, monitor them. they're threats to a LOT of things, including other people's lives (whether or not the other people are in America, it still poses a uniquely American problem, as our gov't may be aiding a different side of the conflict).
If I thought they were marching about civil liberties, lagomorph, I'd be a lot happier. I do not trust the people in power a jot more than I did last year... but I have a different understanding of the power dynamics in America than you do, I think.
Oh, and much lolz about your rants on Americorps. Americorps! Where they don't even pay people enough to live on! And where they were already issuing uniforms YEARS ago, under Bush! (I still have mine!) Where part of their paycheck is applying to food stamps -- all while serving their country!
SampleAmericorpsMember: Former streetwalker, nymphomaniac, who raised her children with the help of her husband (who she began dating when she was 12), and is now going to Divinity School to be a Pastor. Walks by nuisance bars every day to pray for them, and the people within. Participates in the NAACP, and helps with Peace Marches. (what she's doing after americorps: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06026/644107-56.stm)
Want more?
The teabag innuendo is a
The teabag innuendo is a scream. Teabag Day a purely made-for-Fox-TV event. The protests that preceded the Iraq war were genuinely grassroots, and they were among the largest in American history. Not that anyone would have know that from the right-wing corporate media.
It is interesting the way Fox is covering this like the election
I'll grant you that. I don't trust Fox any more than I trust MSNBC. I do like Cavuto, though, because he seems to be able to speak truth to power while remaining somewhat detached. Beck is nuttier than a fruitcake but even a fruitcake may have a message on fascism that's worth paying attention to.
One thing I'd like you guys to think about is that the definition of madness is created by those in power, particularly when it helps marginalize those who disagree with them. The Right was always fond of saying "Liberalism is a mental disorder" when in power, now the tables are turned and it's all about the "crazy Right Wingnuts" now. What some of us on the Right have discovered is that some of you on the Left were actually correct about a few things. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume that everyone on the Right is completely crazy and therefore unworthy of any credibility. If you did that, you'd be playing right into the agenda now, wouldn't you?
Ah...maybe so?
the problem is, the people
the problem is, the people who might not be "wingnuts" don't speak up and march right in lockstep.
Lagomorph
From your posts here you appear to be an informed, articulate, reasonable person, with valid views to express which, I hope, are considered and valued by all who post here.
Which is why I would urge you to seriously consider the damage being done to the credibility of conservative thought when it voluntarily identifies itself, and places itself on a Homeland Security watch list, with true extremists (racist or Neo-Nazi militias, the Timothy McVeighs of the world) or even the likes of Glenn Beck. It's hard to know how crazy he truly is or whether it's all just an act, but it's undeniable that he is inciting the true extremists. I tend to think he's all just an act, in it just for the money, but I can't imagine any upside to in any way defending or associating yourself with someone who can't make a point without resorting to bizarre behavior or crazy rantings. Can you? At best, assuming he's just found a lucrative act, you're lining his pockets for the pleasure of having him damage your opportunity to convince the broader public.
I would invoke the ghost of St. Ronnie here to ask whether any who defend Beck or would voluntarily place themselves on a terrorist watch list with the Neo-Nazi militias and McVeigh, can imagine him doing or advocating the same?
I agree with you, with a few variations on the theme
I agree that almost everything we see delivered to us by the media and politics is show business, designed to distract us and detach us from reality completely. When I gave Beck credit for properly identifying the Obama Administration's slide toward the centralization of power that has historically been called fascism (as opposed to socialism, which is what Beck originally proposed and then self-corrected), I meant it in the spirit of saying that even a broken clock can still be right twice a day.
I don't watch Glenn Beck's show on a frequent basis so I can't speak with your authority on the degree to which he's inciting domestic terrorists. But let's ask ourselves this question. Is Glenn Beck "inciting" by the spread of rumor, lies, innuendo and deception, or is the government behaving in a manner which provides fuel with which Beck can operate? Does the government have an ultimate responsibility to behave in a manner which is aboveboard, transparent, honest, forthright, in a way which supports the Constitution of the United States, the rule of law, and legal precedents of the Supreme Court? If we agree that it does, then perhaps the public has a certain expectation that they don't feel is being met - including Beck.
The risk that a right wing zombie assassin army can suddenly be hijacked into action by a dramatically looney (notice I hesitate to even use the term "charismatic") talk show and Fox News host seems to rate right up there with HAARP and MK Ultra mind control theories. I'm not mocking people who seriously believe in MK Ultra, I'm just saying that such concerns presume that people are not responsible for their own actions and are being highly influenced and potentially brainwashed by someone such as Glenn Beck. When people commit crimes and blame them on precipitating causalities, they can range anywhere from "too much sugar caused a brain chemical imbalance" to "obeyed Satanic commands via Black Sabbath songs played backwards".
The bottom line we must not lost sight of is that people who arm themselves for the purpose of committing violence are sociopathic/psychopathic, either consistently or momentarily. This is where we start to go down the road of blaming society, their parents, teachers, neighbors and video games along with whatever or whomever is determined to be the "trigger". By doing this we completely abrogate personal responsibility and self control - we make them irrelevant. I wonder if the absolution aspect of perpetrator-as-victim has led to more mass killing crimes than any other contributing factor over the past century.
There is a small school of thought out there that the Timothy McVeigh incident was actually committed by the government. Most people don't go down that road any more than they do with 9/11, but should we be as guarded against a State committing criminal acts as we would guard against members of a particular ideology? As Ronnie used to say, I'm inclined to support the notion that we should constantly "trust but verify". We're a long way from Soviet Russia or Fascist Italy, and we want to keep it that way. Beck does tend to bring in educators, economists, historians and authors who can provide some historical context on why we should be alarmed if we detect certain trends. Perhaps Beck and Napolitano are watching each other, as it were. Possibly that's not altogether a bad idea.
Subliminal influence is certainly a staple of advertising, psychology and hypnotherapy but Beck is pretty much an open book and I have not observed him using typical NLP storytelling techniques and modalities (gestures, body language, etc.). The one area I have seen him exploit is heightened emotion, which could overstimulate some viewers and amplify their beliefs. This is the main reason why I posted earlier that kicking ourselves up a notch from heightened emotionalism into a more detached, critical thinking frame of reference, is always our best strategy for remaining sane in a world that seems like it's going a little crazy from time to time. Another strategy I recommend is to turn Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, BBC and Newsworld International off. ;-)
three police officers are dead because of Beck's show
he shows no remorse, no "maybe I should tune this down some" -- and Poplawski is not at all remorseful, planning on writing a book on the subject -- ambushing police officers and gunning them down in cold blood.
Most sociopaths are normal members of society, like Nixon and Lieberman.
Wrong, wrong, so utterly and totally WRONG
Three people are dead because a sociopathic individual purchased a gun, loaded it, and pulled a trigger. Oh noes, wait - three people are dead because some female had sex with a male who impregnated her and then produced this offspring who grew up to purchase a gun, load it, and then pull a trigger. No no, hang on, I've got it - first the Big Bang happened, then the earth cooled, then the dinosaurs roamed, then evolution created humans, which then ultimately led to the Enlightenment in which everyone who ever harmed another in premeditated or passion-induced violence was suddenly let off the hook because they became an instant victim of societal mind control.
To all my dear anti-Beckistas: where was your outrage during the filming, distribution and showing of Death of a President? Firstly, it was just a movie. Secondly, it did not perpetrate a crime - and if anything on earth should have or would have, this should have and would have. You can't slice and dice the rules to suit your own ideologies, peeps. When will you cease the socially reengineering of violent crime and make the persons responsible who pull the goddamn trigger? From the looks of these posts: Never.
Can we all engage in a little critical thinking, please?
when you spread around what Timothy McVeigh was reading...
deliberately dogwhistling violence and mayhem, then you're guilty of inciting something. No, this aint' a court of law. But if it was, I'd be all for putting Biff down like the mad dog that he is.
I never saw that movie, and it was not shown here. It's much less of a problem when the "Big Bad" exists on the other side of the ocean.
But here I'm pointing to a proximate cause that the guy's best freind admitted to reporters.
I'm not talking about the Dayton Bombing -- which was 'possibly' precipitated by anti-Muslim mailings from conservatives. That's what I call WEAK.
I'm trying to be consistent here, despite my biases -- if I heard about an environmental protest that incited folks to do property damage, I'd be pissed at them too, and be asking what controls they intended to put on their event so that dipshits didn't spoil the protest.
This is reasonably strong evidence that Beck ought to shut the fuck up.
Oh, and Cavuto was caught lying on air yesterday. Kos broke the story.
But yeah, It's only a BAD BAD thing when Liberals say that it's society that makes X person do this. It's by all means not a BAD BAD thing when Conservatives say society allows X person to do this, and therefore we ought to all be armed, and police ought to be equipped with enough firepower to defeat automatic weapons.
What about Tokyo Rose?
Who did she shoot? Oh wait, no one.
So I guess you don't believe she should have been tried for treason.
Hey, let's be big and allow the littleLeft people their fun
Taking the Tea Party events and poking fun at them by calling them "teabagging"?
Is that the best the farLeft can do? I mean, as a gay GOPer, I almost laughed out loud when fellow-fag and farLeft apologist Anderson Cooper said all the GOP had left was teabagging. Like he has room to talk deep in the closet with his Mommie's memories.
It's about as effective as when the farLeft, damaged by fair claims they were unpatriotic during the War on Terror, started calling people 'chickenhawks" and "keyboard warriors". We know who the real patriots were -they stood by the US and the military and the mission when others, fresh from their diversity training sessions, sought to placate terrorists and the French.
Grade school playground names for littleLeft minds. It's the best they can do. Let's be big and let the littleLeft people have their fun. It's what Anderson Cooper, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart want.
There's a BIG difference though.
I have trouble trusting the intelligence, ability to plan, and ability to navigate our economy of any person or persons who are not clever enough to google the name they intend on using to describe their political movement so as to make sure it isn't... say... a pretty well known sex act.
Remember, the right wing/Republican/conservatives in the USA have called their organised "tea party" activities protesting some aspect of Democrat/liberal policy from the Obama administration "teabagging." They did this themselves. This wasn't some joke from Democrat/liberal media etc that has been thrust upon them. For example: "Tea bag the liberals, before they tea bag you." was a plackard held by a Tea Party member a couple of days ago. Fox News offcially mentioned Tax Day Tea Party as Teabag Party oft times, even today.
This is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I have ever seen.
It's still funny even if it's an externally applied comment. This is what conservatives deserve for refusing to do even a little bit of research or fact-checking.
Remainder wins award!!
With this comment, he gets the prize for being the best able to capture the full sense of what "little Left people stuck on the grade school playground" is all about... little minds, little people, little thoughts.
You think the farLeft's exposure of "teabagging" in an urban underground meaning is witty? I think it just shows the flat out vulgarity and lack of respect for the public square that is the hallmark of intolerant little Left people like you and RisingTide and others who comment here. Of course, for witless folks like you, laughter at crude jokes probably comes quickly, no? Big JonStewart and LewisBlack fan, no?
Honest, Remainder, this isn't an award anyone should want -but it's one you deserve.
Participatory Democracy vs. the Totalitarian Shut-down Machine
Matt, I appreciate the fact that your rebuttal was logical, civil and rational. There are a few other aspects of the critiques and mockery on the Left, sexual and otherwise, that I wanted to add to the mix before we close up this thread.
Fortunate citizens that we are, we live in a participatory democracy where the right to assemble is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Rather than celebrating the fact that conservatives of several 3rd parties and the two larger ones came out in significant numbers - not gigantic numbers, but significant numbers - to express themselves in ways that they've really not done in my lifetime, the Left instead seeks to mock, marginalize, and denigrate conservatives. In some instances, as with CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen, they seek to shut down our free speech and talk over it with their own agenda while managing to look rather whiny and pathetic in the process.
I remember the Black Panthers blocking polling places and intimidating voters with nightsticks in Pennsylvania during the 2008 election, and physical attacks during Tom Tancredo's speech this week at UNC Chapel Hill (warning: this video is unconscionable) along with David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, et al when they are invited to speak on college campuses as a prime example of First Amendment violations by leftists behaving in the manner of Hitler's brownshirt thugs.
Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart use mockery rather than violence, but rather than mocking all politicans in the manner of the professional comedians on Saturday Night Live or other late night comedians, their goal appears to be to shut down all opinion, expression, or points of view with which they disagree. They've become propaganda tools of the State. This may play well to the terminally historically unaware in 2008 or 2009, but it's quite possible that history will judge these gentlemen a bit more severely for skewering moms, dads and dogs protesting overspending and high taxes instead of shining their illumination on the Central Bank and the State's corporatism and military/ideological profiling during this period.
Whenever we're discussing the First Amendment repression issue with a conservative, we typically tend to hear things like I would say about Ann Coulter (who drives me nuts), such as "I personally can't stand Ann Coulter, but I'd defend her right to say things that often offend me or strike me as idiotic and reactionary." To be fair, I feel pretty much the same way when MeggieMac holds forth on the Daily Beast and Rachel Maddow, so there it is. Two more anti-intellectual representatives of conservatism I cannot imagine on either end of the spectrum, but I would not dream of yelling "Shut them down, no dumb blondes in our town!" were they invited to speak at my alma maters.
Conversely, whenever we're discussing the First Amendmant issue with a leftist, we inevitably tend to hear things like "shut the f**k up" and beyond. I've seen several leftists on Twitter threaten conservatives with promises such as "I'll blow your head off during the coming civil war, retard." While it's refreshing to see leftists who support the 2nd Amendment on the one hand, it's quite disburbing to hear them employing it to blow the heads off conservatives with whom they disagree. I seriously doubt that my colleagues on the left will attribute these violent threats to Glenn Beck on Fox News, which circles me back toward my position on personal responsibility which has apparently has fallen on "deaf eyes" who will neither see nor hear beyond their own paradigm.
If it were only the reflections of little minds (or the lack thereof) we were dealing with, I'd say "oh, whatever." But we're potentially dealing with various mobs, ochlocracies, of little-minded vetos which are liable to spark violence on both sides at some point. This represents far more than mere small-mindedness, that somewhat charming and naive staple of the small-town some of us recall with a mixture of nostalgia and "meh" from yesteryear. There's a sinisterism to it, a lack of empathy, a low emotional IQ in this mob thinking - the kind of sinisterism that ultimately lent itself to what was poetically referred to as The Terror followiing both the French and Russian revolutions.
I think we will all come to long for the day when liberals represented peace, free love and rock 'n roll instead of the leftist totalitarian shut-down machine they're rapidly evolving into (or being overridden by?). That is most assuredly not change I can believe in.
you should read a bit more, lagomorph
A registered Poll Observer is NOT intimidating people in that video. In fact, if he was intimidating folks, I would rather think that the Registered Polling Observer for John Sidney McCain would have phoned it in.
As it was, you had a guy come in rather comical dress (and his buddy, who was asked to leave, because he was NOT a poll observer).
This pales in comparison to Steele's busing of unemployed Philadelphians to Maryland, in order to have them pass out sample ballots insinuating that Steele was the Democratic candidate in low income, low information neighborhoods.
This pales in comparison to the push polling that happened in my neighborhood, trying to intimate that Obama would be bad for Israel.
This pales in comparison to the blatant Republican misconduct in Montana, where they deliberately scrubbed Democratic-leaning districts of voters, while leaving Republican-leaning districts alone. [disc: I love Montana, even other Republican Politicians called this out as being idiotic and stupid]
Sir, there is NO ideological profiling going on. When they shut down the Ron Paul folks for printing Ron Paul Dollars, that is NOT ideological profiling, just enforcing the laws of the land (and that happened in 2008, as well. bush's admin did something right. Go Bush!)
I do believe that Jon Stewart and company (not going to speak to Olbermann, as I don't watch him) are quite busy skewering whomever is funny at the moment, and have been brave enough to break stories on Corporatism infecting our Media.
Lagomorph, you would be the first to tell me that it is acceptable to PROTECT ONES FAMILY from anarchic violence. PLEASE do not bitch at the fine folks who take SENSIBLE precautions towards eliminating threats. It is Everyone's fond hope that there will be no actual seccession, no civil war, and we will all have roses and flowers! In the meantime, however, do not speak out against the ENTREPRENEURS busy selling ammo ("Obama's Jack Booted Thugs Will Steal Your Guns!!!!"). They're also collecting names and addresses, in case of a TRUE emergency. [I'm speaking of a personal friend of mine. He's a liberal, but I'd wager he's more dangerous than most people here.]
Seriously, you guys have the perfect right to protest! And we have the right to make fun of you! but please, read my diary on the subject. Yinz should be glad we're making fun of you -- it makes liberals look foolish NOT you!
Making fun of you does NOT indicate the formation of a leftist totalitarian shutdown machine.
I think I'm going to reference a book recently reviewed on DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/12/718452/-Book-review:-Dave-Ne...
Okay, so just looking at the bullet points:
I think the Left can remotely reasonably be said to subscribe to 6 and 7 (and certain groups could be said to be 5, and occasionally people sound like 3).
I think the Right can be reasonably said to subscribe to
1 (secession? orly?)
2 (mainstream media is Liberal? if anything it's corporatist. you haven't seen one good story on unions, between Reagan and the Writer's Strike)
4(to a much lesser extent than the others, and much more prevalent among Religious Right)
5 only applies to Dominionists (and other religious nutcases, and the libertarians who want Vermont to secede from the union)
6 is not yet true, and yet it's illuminating to see how much the right wants "A Leader" -- the left seemed pretty confident that leaders (plural) would materialize, like Lamont and Webb did.
8 sounds like Beck, or maybe Perry. I hope this one isn't true, as it's really likely to cause problems.
9 occasionally strikes chords, but I think that most Republicans are law-abiding individuals, who wouldn't go shoot someone.
Really, if you all would back off of the ideas presented by Hate Radio, I think the world would be a better place. This is not an Us Versus Them titanic struggle -- it's government... something that occasionally has to get things done for the benefit of USA. And Democrats NEED good solid Republican Criticism! They need new ideas, not just from Dorgan and Kennedy, but from Coburn and Hutchinson too!
Good Advice - We Should All Read a Bit More
I will take that advice, and thank you for the KOS links. For the record, I actually do not listen to "hate" radio. I listen to Hugh Hewitt, who is one of the smartest, most balanced conservatives I have had the privilege to listen to. His regulars include Mark Steyn, Mary Katherin Hamm, Guy Benson and various local California politicians such as Darrell Issa whom I find to be very much aligned with fiscal conservatism and tolerance. I listen to Chip Franklin, who is a libertarian. I cannot abide the more divisive hosts including some of the San Diego locals any more than I can abide Ms. Coulter.
My world view is an amalgam of 5 decades of observing and learning from radical behavior, 4 wars, 3 universities, living in the Pacific Rim for a third of that time and in 6 states in the midwest, Pacific northwest and west. I read Buckley and I also read Chomsky. I'm new to economics, but I read Roubini and Woods, Schiff and Stiglitz, Keynes, Mises, Hayek and both Milton and David Friedman.
I'm a continuous learner, and my favorite topic is history which is why I make some of the assumptions I do when I believe I'm observing repetitive trends. I think that we see things from our different prisms, some of which overlap and some of which don't. I believe we live in very different regions and belong to different cultures, and any Sci-Fi writer worth her salt will tell you that geography, culture, economics and geology all combine to form our paradigms. I'm not hysterical about the fact that we've entered some apocalyptic dystopian era at this time, but I am sounding an alarm that we want to watch our steps so that we don't slide in that direction. I hope that any reader consuming your posts along with mine will be able to use them as one would use a buffet - taking what they like and leaving the rest. You and I are not likely to convince each other or persuade each other to change our opinions because we have several very disparate beliefs which substantially filter our perceptions. But I think we will continue to inform each other, and that's where the value lies.
we do need to take care, I agree.
I am far more worried about the Right than the Left, and not just because I'm a liberal partisan!
Rather, the party who is out of power tends to be the haven for the disgruntled 33% (be they Communists or Reactionaries).
I see a lot of parallels between now and the Great Depression.
Obama truly has everything he wants -- he doesn't even need to throw tantrums about the Supreme Court like FDR did! I find it rather incredible that he might try a power grab... unless forced by circumstances (which you'll note that I've been predicting. riots in socal, southern florida, michigan -- America will burn this year, mark my words). But that's martial law, not Fascistic Takeover Of All That's Good. If secession actually gets rolling (say, in Utah or Wyoming), then the scope of "what will look reasonable" to the larger populace may radically change (Overton Window flying off the hinges. ow, the metaphor it hurts!). I rather believe in the man -- it's why I voted for him over Hillary -- in terms of not wanting to be a fascistic dictator. Certainly he's been making "reasonable" strides in reducing state secrets (sans FISA).
At any rate, I'd be far more worried about Europe, and in particular Britain. They do a much poorer job integrating people into their society.
Unless we get a mass refugee invasion from Mexico -- then all bets are off (they still consider the American Southwest rightfully their territory, mind).
I think, if we got together, we could hack out a decently cost - effective solution to this crisis ;-) The whole shebang. And that we'd find that we have much more in common than we disagree about.
By the way, I posted a diary responding to you... ;-)
Getting together...will that be allowed on the agenda?
When I don my Kaiser Aluminum designer tinfoil hat, the voices* send me special vibrations that indicate that one of the biggest threats going is for us specifically NOT to get together. This is why I don't trust Fox News any more than MSNBC or the others (although I do have a special place in my heart for Jake Tapper at ABC, LoL).
There's every good reason in the world for you to be liberal and for me to be conservative and completely disagree on many ways to live a good life and solve problems, but the intolerant hate-spewing vitriol concerns me as much as it does you. It's really not healthy in any way, shape or form. I won't hold talk radio or cable news or even Hollywood responsible for pulling triggers or setting bombs but I will certainly hold their feet to the fire for influencing public opinion and either reinforcing or creating some very strong and potentially inflammatory beliefs. Is anything more powerful than a belief? Not that I know of. All creation begins as a thought that might then be manifested in what we think of as "reality".
Some people who consider themselves intellectuals disdain "religion". They eschew "religious" people. I think they've quite got it half-wrong. I don't disdain religion, I disdain the force behind all fundamentally flawed beliefs which are destructive, damaging, ignorant or oppressive. Are some of my beliefs fundamentally flawed? Hell yes - and I don't even know what they are unless events conspire to reveal them to me. Even lovely Disneyesque agendas like global sustainability can take on sinister quasi-religious hues if their proponents believe we should smite a few billion people off of the planet (think: Fear and Lee Ving singing "Let's Have a War So You Can Go Die") so that the earth can eventually become a greener, nicer, more natural place to live with the animals (rofl - click on the link if you haven't seen the Fitzcarraldo documentary in which Werner Herzog rants about the obscenity of nature representing the Harmony of Murder). And I'm always mystified when someone says "So whose definition of ignorant or oppressive shall we follow, yours or mine?" as if there are no universal spiritual laws which guide human behavior toward any morality which isn't relative.
I think the most dangerous agenda is one which encourages us to become so married to our beliefs that we care not for each other nearly as much as we care for our beliefs. In the end, I'd rather debate with the most peevish and vexish of contrarians than find myself all alone on the planet with my nice, neat, totally unchallenged beliefs. It brings to mind the saying "would you rather be right or would you rather be happy?". I don't want to compromise all my principles, but I want to compromise enough of them to pass the time with others as interestingly as possible if this planet turns out to be the end-all be-all rather than some kind of existential waiting room.
*not to mock my schizophrenic colleagues, I just love making jokes about the voices