This is a post to a friend of mine that I thought worth sharing, where he called me out for some of the initial comments by the media about the associations that Jared Lee Loughner may have had. Some of those associations now seem slim.
If you'd read posts on FB from the right side of the spectrum over this last year or so, and heard the astonishing amount of violent language being used, then you might begin to understand where my initial reactions come from. "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim". The insistence upon referring to the President as "Barack Hussein Obama" or "BHO" in order to play up the "otherness" of his name. The insistence that he's a closet Muslim. The straight faced belief that he wasn't born in Hawaii, but Kenya, and that many government agencies are part of the 'fraud". The images with a noose around his neck. The calling out for the "removal" of all "libtards". The yelling and screaming. And I'm just talking about posts from some of my FB "Friends"! :>( Honestly, I was completely shocked. I never imagined that people were SO angry and vicious. While I could understand why people were so angry with George W. Bush, I don't ever remember my liberal friends wanting to kill him, burning him in effigy. They called him an "idiot", and I must admit that there were times I said the same thing too. When you read some of the "Bushisms" and the sentences that absolutely butchered the English language, it's understandable to think he's stupid (Though I would acknowledge that he's not stupid at all: he's just not a very good extemporaneous public speaker). In all likelihood, he lied to the American people (maybe even lied to himself), and took us into 2 wars that have devastated our economy and spilled the blood of thousands of young men and women. There are even those whose anger at him is due to his losing the general election, but winning by "one vote in the Supreme Court". I might even lean in that direction, but even given all of that, I don't recall ANY of the violent conversation on the part of my liberal friends that I hear with my "conservative Friends". It's not even close. And that is just my personal FB experience that simply "piles on" to the Tea Party placards, the shouting down of Democratic Reps. at town hall meetings, the threats, crosshairs, the "Second Amendment remedies", and all that. My reaction was visceral, emotional, and not particularly reasoned or cooly thought out. I am indeed a man who gets passionate about certain things and I was overwhelmed by the emotions of seeing Rep. Giffords shot, who herself stood on the steps of the Capitol for an interview after she was "targeted" by Sarah Palin's notorious website and said that people need to think about what they're saying and take responsibility for their actions. And then this. While exactly what Loughner thought is only now starting to get pieced together and early information is either sussing out or not, I will absolutely stand by my statements that the tone of the American political discourse needs to ratchet down a notch or two. That seems only reasonable.
A conversation about politics, government, and the media: from the center, with hopefully a little less of the irrational "heat" and a little more logical thinking applied. Yeah, call me crazy....
I agree with you, Dirty. The tone of American political discourse does need to ratchet down a notch or two. The left really needs to stop jumping to conclusions and blaming the right every time something bad happens without having any of the facts. It creates quite a negative and hostile environment and models very poor behavior for our children.
ReplyDeleteYour comments might be funny, Fred, if they weren't so sad and yet another indication that we're not really talking to each other...
ReplyDeleteJust playing devil's advocate here, but what do you think the response would have been on Fox News and the right wing blogosphere if the shooter had been of some brown ethnic variety and had shot a Republican Congressperson?
I'm just sayin'..... :>)
I'll answer your question if you answer my questions about the Constitution that I asked over two weeks ago and keep reminding you to answer.
ReplyDeleteYour question sounds like it came right out of NPR, say from Daisy Hernandez.
@ Fred - Not certain who Daisy Hernandez is, and I would be highly surprised if _you've_ ever listened much to NPR, huh? :>)
ReplyDeleteFrankly, when I said "some brown ethnic variety", I was thinking more along the lines of middle eastern ethnicity, but I thought I'd keep it a little less specific than that.
Partisanship for the sake of partisanship is a waste of time....
Well, it seems like you jump to conclusions and make a number of assumptions about people. (Note: the smiley faces really don't alter the underlying attitudes of your posts.)
ReplyDeleteI can make assumptions right back and assume that you heard that comment from NPR and are now just trying to wiggle your way out of it, but I won't make that assumption.
If a middle easterner had shot a Republican, I would have suspected a terrorist, but I would have had the sense to keep my mouth shut until I had some details to support or disprove my suspicions.
Given the number of middle eastern terrorist, I'm pretty sure my suspicion would be justified. However, I'm not a politician, not a news analyst, and don't have any kind of public forum, but even so, I would not have posted such irresponsible comments as those on the left did when Giffords was shot.
Now are you going to answer my questions about the Constitution? Why are you avoiding them? You said you read it and what the founders said about it, so how hard can those questions be to answer?
In case you forgot my questions or don't want to bother going to look for them, I'll repost them for you. Here they are:
ReplyDeleteSince you've done all that reading, can you tell me the basis for our Constitution? What is the idea it is based on? What is the primary role of the federal government, according to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution? From the writings of which philosophers/writers did our founders base the idea for our Constitution?
I realize that this is your blog and you can write whatever you want, but your refusal to address these questions just makes me think you are avoiding them because you can't answer them, because you know a lot less about the subject than you claimed in your previous comments on your very first entry.
@ Fred - Well, you're a better man than I, then. It was hard not to feel a tremendous rush of emotion, as I've followed Rep. Giffords for a bit, and found her to be a forthright, intelligent, very open, center-leaning Democrat. I agree with a lot of what she's said, and I remember her interview on the steps of the Capitol after the gunsight graphic was posted. My anger got the better of me....
ReplyDeleteAs to "smiley faces", they are generally considered to be an indication that the comment is made with some level of humor or lightness, and that's PRECISELY what they mean when I use them. If you don't have a sense of humor, OK. You'll probably always misunderstand me then.
And instead of assuming what you might have said if a middle eastern shooter had harmed a Republican Congressperson, I'll acknowledge that you wouldn't have immediately called that person an "Islamic terrorist" nor made comments to the effect that "Islam is a cult, not a religion", as has become the common "chant" on the right. You're a better man than that and I appreciate that.
As to the Constitution questions, I may not answer your specific questions above, but I will have something to post on the subject of "strict constitutionalist" or "originalism" and the Constitution as a "living document" in the very near future..... Stay tuned....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the difference between us, Dirty, is that I'm not an angry person, so anger will rarely get the better of me. I also hold people personally accountable for their actions so if someone goes out and shoots someone, I blame that person. I may be interested in their motives, but I don't presume to know what they are until they've been revealed.
ReplyDeletePeople with a public forum - like a sheriff or reporter or news anchor or commentator -- have no business speculating publicly on the motives of anyone who has been caught committing a crime when no one knows anything yet. That is incredibly irresponsible.
And in light of the outrage the left has expressed toward the supposed anger of the right, I have to wonder where their anger is at Republicans being compared to Nazis on the floor of the House. Or how about the crosshairs on the fliers calling for a march on the home of the developer of a Walmart store in DC? At night. Where's the outrage? Where's the call for less anger? More civility? Both of these events came after the Tucson shootings.
People on both sides can be rude and angry, but I have seen far more of it on the left than on the right. I read comments on a variety of pages on FB and frankly I can only tolerate so much of it on most liberal pages. Post after post after post consists of little more than angry, hate-filled rants and vile slurs toward conservatives. And I'm not talking about responses. I'm talking about initial posts.
There is no discussion of any substance at all that I find on the liberal pages. Reading the conservative pages, however, I find discussions of issues, which may be interrupted by liberals who visit, at which point the discussion generally deteriorates. I've also seen conservative, in good faith and respectfully, post questions on liberal pages, but such posts have the effect of throwing chum to sharks. The poster just gets attacked. Try it as an experiment yourself. Visit some pages on FB. Don't post, just observe. It may be an eye opener.
As for the smileys, I have an excellent sense of humor, when I find something funny. Sometimes people use smileys like a back-handed compliment. They say something offensive and then put a smiley after it as if that will make it less offensive -- not saying you do that. I'm just making an observation.
I'm looking forward to your blog entry on the Constitution. I'm sure you'll get lots of comments on it.
@ Fred - Interesting the differences in what each of us sees in terms of anger and incivility, re "I have seen far more of it on the left than on the right". As to looking at the FB pages of people I don't know, I'm sorry but that just doesn't interest me much. As to a few of the "liberal" FB pages that have been forwarded to me by others or reposted on friends' FB pages, I've "liked" a few of them, then been disappointed in the silliness. Those on the right? Far more disconcerting to me. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree....
ReplyDeleteAs to Rep. Steve Cohen comparing Republicans to Nazis, I think it's time to give the Nazi-calling a rest. I've heard way too much of it and I can't think of too many times that it's been accurate. As to precisely what Rep. Cohen said, he never used the word "Nazi". He compared the lie of the Republican talking points on healthcare to Goebbels' dictum that if you repeat the lie with enough frequency, people will eventually believe it ("death panels", "government takeover of healthcare", etc.). HIs point is worthy of discussion, but his choice of analogies is seriously mistaken.
And it's funny, on Fox News, Megyn Kelly defended Fox by saying that no one on Fox has ever called Democrats "Nazis". And that very evening, once again Glenn Beck riffed on it, trying to make the comparison that the Nazis used the Progressives' "propaganda" tactics. The "money quote"? "Nazi tactics are progressive tactics. Progressive tactics are Nazi tactics." And funny that her boss Roger Ailes called NPR "Nazis" for firing Juan Williams, but I guess that doesn't count because technically he wasn't on Fox saying it.
It's just too easy to call someone you disagree with a "Nazi". Or a "socialist". Or a "fascist". Once again, we leave the opportunity for a serious discussion on the sidelines, and end up throwing rotten eggs at each other instead....
“Karl von Weigand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Weigand his propaganda library, the finest Weigand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Weigand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me…” —Edward Bernays, recalling a dinner at his home in 1933.
ReplyDeleteWho was Edward Bernays? Edwards worked for the Committee on Public Information, commissioned by Woodrow Wilson to sway the American public towards war.
I was not referring to pages of individuals; you can't usually see them if you aren't friends with them anyway. I was referring to pages, official and unofficial, of political parties and movements. It probably depends somewhat on the day and time you visit a given page, but what I said holds true, if you click on the "Only Others" filter of the pages.
ReplyDeleteAs for flinging the terms "Nazi" and "fascist," once again I see that happening far more on the left than on the right. In any case, you are right that it is too easy to throw out insults than it is to engage in real discussions of issues.
That said, if someone actually is a Nazi, calling them one is not a case of name-calling. Is anyone a Nazi today? Certainly. We do have a Nazi party in this country.
Or what if we look at history and point out that a movement, like the progressive movement, had similar beliefs as German Nazis? If it's true, is it a slur? No, it's not. Is it a slur to mention that Hitler wrote letters of praise for the eugenics program in the US? Is it a slur to mention that progressives were the ones in America who favored eugenics? Or that Eugenics inspired Hitler?
We have become so sensitive to some terms that many people can't distinguish between an attempt to discredit an individual or idea and historical truth.
Huh. Almost a week and still no post about the Constitution, no answers to my questions. It's been ages since I first asked. Who would have thought someone so knowledgeable about the Constitution would take so long to answer those questions.
ReplyDelete