The Chilling Rise of Right-Wing Hate in America

[Originally posted on my blog, Library Grape.]

Crooks and Liars posted new details about the right-wing psychopath who gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh:

Thanks to some sleuth work on the Internet, we're starting to learn more about Richard Poplawski, the 23-year-old who killed three police officers yesterday in Pittsburgh, evidently out of fear that his guns were going to be taken away.

It appears that what police may be looking at is a budding white supremacist who frequented one of the most popular neo-Nazi websites and harbored an apocalyptic dread of the federal government...

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has some corroboration from other sources that indicates he fits this profile:

Richard Andrew "Pop" Poplawski's ex-girlfriend said he dragged her by the hair and threatened to shoot her.

He slept with a gun under his pillow in a basement room filled with firearms and ammunition, convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday.

"He was a violent, abusive man. He dragged me by the hair, pulling me across the floor. I saw him choke his own mother. He was controlling," said Melissa Gladish, 23, of Verona, his former girlfriend who received a protection from abuse order against him in 2005. She said she had no doubt he would kill someone.

I can't begin to tell you how frightened this makes me.  The radical right wingers that were so prevalent during the Clinton administration went dormant during the Bush years.  Now that Obama is in office, and irresponsible sociopaths like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann are recklessly stoking the fires of paranoid rightwing victimization, I fear we will face countless tragedies like what just went on in Pittsburgh.

When liberal radicals get upset, they engage in protests and damage property, like the unfocused, anti-everything nonsense you saw outside the G-20 summit.

When right wing radicals get upset, they shoot lots of people and or blow up a building with lots of people in it (see, e.g., the FBI building in Oklahoma City).

As Tim F. at Balloon Juice opines:

  How is that "orderly revolution" going, Michelle?  How about that laundry soap rebellion, Erick? This is what Glenn Beck's citizen army looks like. People like Michelle Malkin fantasize about citizens rising up against the (Democratic) state. They stoke their followers' paranoia with bullshit that, mostly, they know is bullshit, for ratings and a shot at political traction. Did they expect the American revolution?

In response to John's famous Peak Wingnut post I pointed out that political irrelevance will hardly stifle rightwing victimology but feed it like CO2, manure and sunlight.  I tend to call the relevant phenomenon `toxic victim syndrome', or TVS. The feeling that one is a powerless victim has a corrosive psychological effect. It exempts self-appointed victims from normal moral standards. It justifies (in one's own mind) an endless list of behaviors that an ordinary person would never consider.

John Cole, as usual, has a spot-on view of the situation:
And, of course, when you point out that certain individuals with all their talk about "revolution" and "armed insurrection" are inciting this kind of behavior in unstable people, you will get howls of protest about the 1st Amendment and what not. Sure, crazy people do crazy things. But that doesn't make it responsible to encourage them, which is what a lot of really foolish people are doing right now for purely political reasons.
And for a final word on the responsibility of the media, here's Andrew Sullivan:
Many of us have worried that the heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces might spill over at some point into violence in the hands of individuals prone to lashing out. We now have what seems to be a clear instance of that and three dead police officers.  One wonders whether Fox News or the Second Amendment fanatics will chill it out a little. And then one realizes who we're talking about.

How many people have to die before the right-wing media acknowledges their complicity in these kinds of attacks and voluntarily dials back their inflammatory rhetoric and incitements to violence?

Sadly, I think it's going to take a long time for that to happen -- and a lot more innocent people are going to die in the interim.  I guess this is what "America First" means for the radical right under an Obama presidency.

Tags: fear, hatred, Media, Politics, racism, Republicans (all tags)

Comments

112 Comments

Sounds familar...

convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday.

I think you could poll 80% of those at a Sara Palin rally, and get the same story....

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-05 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds familar...

We tried to tell thsoe fuckers, and they insisted we were just overreacting. We weren't.

The morons don't seem to understand that their talk about revolution and standing up means murdering Americans. LOTS of Americans. Enough to compensate for all the people that would oppose them.

We are undoubtedly going to see more of this, but the good news is that when we do, it will mean the death of this brand of conservativism once and for all and the end of the ability for people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to bait people without anyone caring. I wouldn't be in favor of curbing their freedom of speech, but I bet we could make their lives miserable enough without having to resort to anything like that. We just have to start treating what they said seriously.

by vcalzone 2009-04-05 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds familar...

why Palin in particular?

by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 08:33AM | 0 recs
Because she was the one

sprewing the hate during the campaign. Alot of people went to her rallies to hear her call Obama a terrorist. I went to one in Pennsylvania to cover the story for the newspaper I was working out. The hate was incredible...and it wasn't left-wing "Republicans are fascist" hate, it was "kill the liberals" hate.

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Because she was the one

nonsense.  She never called Obama a terrorist and the stories about people spewing hate towards him at her rallies were fabricated. There was also that lovely lie about Obama signs being desecrated with racist grafiti along NE PA highways.. that was a lie.  Who said so?  The local heavily democratic police and local authorities.
IT was all pumped up nonsense by a complicite Obama loving media and his campaign fringes.

So what rally was it in Pa that you went to?

by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 10:37AM | 0 recs
You're really delusional

Riverfront Sports Arena...Scranton, Pennsylvania, the day after Columbus Day. Sarah Palin was wearing a blue suit, had her hair tied back and then down on either side of her shoulders.

Some yelled out at the Obama should be killed (was that you?) before Chris Hackett, the guy who ran against Chris Carney in PA-10 came up to speak.

Someone else had a sign that said "Obama=treason" and someone else had a sign that read "Traitors should be shot" made no reference to Obama except the O in traitors was the Obama symbol.

And from what I hear, that wasn't even the worst one.

Yeah, I was there, writing about it. I write about it objectively and left out all those images I saw...but those people, even though they were few in numbers, roared loudest when she said Obama didn't want America to "win"

Oh, and that lovely lie about Obama signs being desecrated on Pennsylvania highways...true...I saw them with my own eyes and I swear on my grandmother's life they were desecreated with graffiti that said "Muslim" and "traitor" among other stuff. These signs were in Pike County, which has Republican police and authorities.

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 11:48AM | 0 recs
gawd, I thought we had a weird crew.
makes me glad I stayed the hell away from Pennsyltucky, yess sirree!
(out in the sticks, so many murtha and mccain signs it wasn't funny. here the mccain signs came down when palin was announced)
by RisingTide 2009-04-06 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: You're really delusional
Nope, none of that is true.  I was working on the Clinton campaign in Scranton, I live right outside of Scranton and I have been heavily involved in democratic politics in NE PA for over a decade....everything you just posted was fabricated.  There isn't a speck of truth or proof for any of it.  Shame on you.
 The signs were supposedly on the highway leading in to town from the Avoca airport to Scranton. They were supposedly seen on the way to a rally at a venue near the new high school.
Now stop embarrasing yourself for goodness sake.
by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 08:53PM | 0 recs
Were you there?

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Because she was the one

You are correct that she didnt say Obama is a terrorist because she doesnt have to. She conflated him with terrorism by saying he hung out with terrorists in front of crowds ready to demonize Obama without giving any context of what the Ayers situation really was.

by Pravin 2009-04-06 12:54PM | 0 recs
Playing the Ayres card...

...was tantamount to calling President Obama a terrorist.  If you like, I could pull up OH transcripts and do a philosophical (speech act) analysis of her wording in light of the crowds she was drawing.

Just because she may not have explicitly done it, that was the intent of playing the Ayres card in the first place.

by AZphilosopher 2009-04-06 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Because she was the one

Stop lying.

by Dreorg 2009-04-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
You're outta here

by ReillyDiefenbach 2009-04-09 07:32AM | 0 recs
What a card you are....

This is such comedy gold from you?

Where do you think the White Rights crowd is congregating, at Democratic rallies?

Girl, you couldn't sell that crap on Free Republic, only in the bent world of Puma where Hillary Clinton=Sarah Palin can such outright lunacy actually be presented without a giant snark sticker.

Classic.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-06 11:22AM | 0 recs
and still nothing of substance

sad.  Again, why Palin in particular?

by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: and still nothing of substance
Don't take it seriously. Palin scares them - she is a real person with real accomplishments. The Obots just come out foamingly scared if they hear her name! It is really hilarious, actually. Or pathetic....
Of course, they hate every woman in power. Small penises, perhaps.
I do expect WSB and others to make their usual nasty remarks. Ignore them as I do.
by Marjoriest 2009-04-06 09:27PM | 0 recs
Alright....

A poodle AND a Strudel....

Yeah, it's all about the Penis, that is why we dislike Sara Palin...

Actually, truth be known, WE LOVE SARAH

Hell, I plan to send money to her 2012 campaign, she is the greatest boat anchor that the Republican Party could possible nominate?

With her at the helm, I figure they carry about 5 southern states, Utah, Wyoming and Alaska.

Seriously, Obama might not even have to campaign, and we can concentrate on Senate Campaigns.

So, keep up the good work, Girlies...

The Republican parties needs fine Feminists like you, PLEASE WE ARE BEGGING spend all your time working for the RNC!

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-06 10:12PM | 0 recs
Are you and teacher the same person?

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you and teacher the same person?

No, just equally stupid.

by fogiv 2009-04-07 08:06AM | 0 recs
Hey Margie....

Check out my latest Homage to Glorious Sarah Yet?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/6/15419 /19613#commenttop

Dedicated to you and all the new feminists over at Conflurence, those supporting the "back to the Kitchen-Barefoot and Pregnant" Sarah Palin 2012 campaign.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-06 10:23PM | 0 recs
Actually Sarah Palin does scare me

She's our very own Serena Joy.

Brownie points to anyone who can get the reference.

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Sarah Palin does scare me

Handmaid's Tale.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 10:31PM | 0 recs
lol

think with your uterus much?  Choice is not in danger and there should be things on your feminist list of importance that outweigh the woman's religious beliefs.  For whatever she has said about her personal beliefs she has never done anything to harm women's rights. IN fact there are democrats who are not an inch removed from her on that topic and Obama has some of them in his whitehouse and on advisory boards.

by Teacher1956 2009-04-07 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

Who are you talking to?

by Jess81 2009-04-07 09:12AM | 0 recs
Either her imaginary AA boyfriend

or her 7 cats, all named "Kitty!"

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-07 11:54AM | 0 recs
lol

Fluffy, Muffy, Puffy, Buffy, Tuffy, Duffy and Joanne

by DTOzone 2009-04-07 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: lol
I could give a rat's ass what she thought of women's rights. She is a freaking menace to the encouraging of scientific thought in the country. She engages in cheap demonization of a presidential rival. Did Biden demonize mcCain in similar terms?
She badmouths certain cities as not the real america while she acts like her meth addicted small town is the embodiment of American good. And yet she wants to be part of a national election?
by Pravin 2009-04-07 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Sarah Palin does scare me

For the two people who troll-rated Jess81's answer to the previous poster's question: There is nothing in her response that warrants it. Why did you do it?

It looks like you people are abusing the rating system. You need to read the rules or find another place to hang out.

by Spiffarino 2009-04-07 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Sarah Palin does scare me

Maybe Zedd, who ever's sock-puppet that is, just hates literature?

Sheesh..zero rating a straight answer, I agree, read the damn rules people!

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-07 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Sarah Palin does scare me

Zedd is that Knox Vow person, who claimed not to actually be Knowvox but to really admire them.

by Jess81 2009-04-07 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds familar...

crickets

by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 08:54AM | 0 recs
Becuase if you have to ask that question

Shows you have more then blinders on, your head is in the Confluence Solid Lead Bucket...

Funny thing is, the best solution to your brain-numbing support of Palin would be for you to actually live in an America following her ideology?

Fortunately, the rest of us are not going there.....

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-06 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Becuase if you have to ask that question
so, no real details or anything to back up your post but impotent insults.
Now please, why Palin in particular?  And PS... who says I support her?  Did I say that? Or do you fancy yourself a mind reader?
by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 10:39AM | 0 recs
I gave you details

you gave us Republican talking points. Don't say you don't support her, you're defending her like a Fox News whore

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 12:17PM | 0 recs
Like most Pumas...

Teachy wants to have it both ways...

She is more liberal then any of us "obama boys" but she defends the far right by defending Palin and she stands for.

She hates the Democratic Party, but the Republicans would laugh their ass off at her, or simply exploit her like McCain did that pathetic old bat Harriet Christiansen.

She's a joke, and not a very funny one, like all her bitter PUMA bretheren.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-06 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise of Right-Wing Hate

The idiocy of it all - Poplawski is, most likely, of Polish extraction.  Did this fool ever realize how his idol, Hitler, treated Poland?

Sad to say there are plenty more such idiots around.

by fstilicho 2009-04-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Victoria Jackson, Rush, Glenn Beck

When you see Glenn Beck have a meltdown or Rush spout off crazy statements, they are indirectly culpable of inciting the crazies. Look at Victoria Jackson's outburst on Hannity. She is not a violent person. That is about the only thing keeping her from gunning down a few cops. But her desperation sounded just as crazy as this wacko in Pittsburgh. The way they are acting like Obama is going to ruin the nation and how their rights are all gone magically. There is no logical basis in what they are blabbing abou.

by Pravin 2009-04-06 08:12AM | 0 recs
Ridiculous

As if the left was responsible for every violent act committed by an extreme group or some cop-hating paranoid "anti-fascist."

Really, it takes a certain kind of hysteria to accuse ideological opponents of sociopathy and to hold them responsible for acts committed by crazy fuckers they've never met.  Can't we try to be a little more than a mirror image of Limbaugh, Beck, etc.?

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

there are idiots and people with brains on both ends of the spectrum.

by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 08:56AM | 0 recs
This is a direct quote

from Erick Erickson of RedState:

"Were I in Washington State, I'd be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation."

He is unambiguous about his willingness (however feigned) to shoot government employees i.e. cops. If you see any daylight between what Mr. Erickson is advocating, and the actions of the Pittsburgh shooter, I'd love to know why.

The Right is not a mirror-image of the Left, we do have our differences. The ethos of the Right is firmly grounded in violence, against other countries when they are in power, and against our country when they are not.

During the years of the Bush Presidency, was there a Timothy McVeigh from the Left? How about a Progressive version of the Unabomber? I'm not aware of either.

by Neef 2009-04-06 10:47AM | 0 recs
Unbelievable

First of all, you want a Progressive version of the Unabomber?  OK, how about.....the Unabomber!

His politics were radical environmentalism, like EarthFirst! and influenced by anarchist thought.  What did you think he was--a Nazi?

Erickson is a demogogue, sure...but he is advocating protecting his property, or self-protection, not shooting cops who respond to a domestic violence situation, unless you think laws against assaulting a partner are what Erickson intends by "nonsensical legilsation"--I doubt that's what he meant.

But left extremists using violence?  Man, you didn't try very hard.  How about Bill Ayers, Berhadine Dohrn, etc.--and I respect a lot of the work they've done but to dismiss their "revolutionary violence" while blaming Sean Hannity for a cop-killer is just irresponsible and dishonest.  Plus, Black Panther Party, Revolutionary Youth Movement, those responsible for bombing the Army Math Center at UW-Madison (and they include a man I respect greatly), etc.

I condemned Nixon and Kissinger as murderers, and I would say the same for Bush and Cheney.  Does that make me responsible for some nutjob who commits a violent act against a government official?  (Hint--No).

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Unbelievable

From the Unabomber's Manifesto:

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.

There's more, of course. He devotes entire sections to the evils of leftism. But I think it's safe to say he's, uh...not one of ours.

Erickson is a demogogue, sure...but he is advocating protecting his property, or self-protection, not shooting cops who respond to a domestic violence situation, unless you think laws against assaulting a partner are what Erickson intends by "nonsensical legislation"--I doubt that's what he meant

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and posit that people who beat their wives think domestic laws are "nonsensical legislation". But that's sort of irrelevant. Erickson is ready to shoot cops if he breaks a law he doesn't agree with.

What?

He's ready to gun down officers doing their job (because enforcing even nonsensical legislation is their job). Erickson, if he is to be believed (and I frankly think he's a poser), is no better than the guy who gunned down those 3 cops.

I grant the point about Dohm, the BPP, etc. However, if you have to go back thirty or forty years to come up with an example, that's pretty damn telling.

by Neef 2009-04-06 04:59PM | 0 recs
Sorry--no soap

"(Erickson) is no better than the guy who gunned down those 3 cops."

This is where hysteria and poor argumentation leads us.  Thought crimes are the same as real crimes.  Pathetic.

As to the Unabomber--it's a long manifesto.  Let's just say that offering him as an example of a right-wing nut is more absurd than left-wing.  He was anti-corporate, anti-development, etc.  Look at his victims.  To say he's uh, not one of ours--archly misses your original point and my response.  He's not really one of ours, theirs, or anyone else's.  He is an individual who, like all individuals, acts on ideas that are determined by a nearly infinite flow of inputs.  To blame someone who spouts ideas for the actions of the Unabomber or anyone else whome the spouter has never met is irresponsible.

I've worked with perpetrators of domestic violence.  Most would agree totally with laws against domestic violence.  They just don't control their behavior under certain critical circumstances.  Erickson isn't talking about laws or situations even resembling the situation in Pittsburgh but you try to draw a parallel.  Erickson is much more likely talking about "excessive" federal intrusion around the second amendment (yes, a concern shared by the psycho in Pittsburgh but not the reason he was approached or started shooting).  Charleton Heston talked about the gun being pried only "from my cold, dead hand."  Is he responsible for the three dead cops in Pittsburgh?  

Twenty years?  There are MANY cases of police officers killed in the line of duty by people who spout, among other things, anti-racist rhetoric.  Some would argue that the radical rhetoric of black nationalists inspired such murderers as Joseph Gardner, a sailor AWOL from the Navy in South Carolina in 1992.  After watching with two friends film of the Rodney King he muttered "400 years of oppression" and went into a prolonged rage about how black folks are justified in seeking revenge.  He and his two friends decided to kidnap and rape a white woman, which they did before killing her.  Gardner was recently executed.   I wouldn't blame black nationalists for this crime--I am very sympathetic to black nationalism--but the ideas of prolonged oppression and reparations can become twisted in the minds of those who have other impulses and determinants towards violence.

Another example: Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front are both influenced clearly by leftist political principles.  Firebombs and the use of homemade napalm in bombs such as the one in Vail, CO have caused great damage--no loss of life yet but that is both a result of design and luck.  I wouldn't hold radical or militant (but non-violent) environmentalists responsible for those crimes.  

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

The Unabomber's writing exhibits classic far right themes. He hates "leftists", the whole work is suffused with this. He believes Russia was taken over by "leftists". He thinks leftists are "for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism". Of course he is stanchly for "freedom", in fact that is the basis for his desire to dismantle technology.

There is no counterbalancing hatred of "rightists" or conservatives. The entire Manifesto reeks of ultra-conservative views. In fact, I challenge you to find a single criticism of conservative thought, much less enough to balance the enormous scorn poured on "leftist" (i.e. Liberal) stances. If you can't or won't highlight such themes, we can agree to disagree on this.

This, however, is central:

Erickson isn't talking about laws or situations even resembling the situation in Pittsburgh but you try to draw a parallel. Erickson is much more likely talking about "excessive" federal intrusion around the second amendment

Let's be very clear about this. Erickson is talking about shooting people who enforce the law. These people are most likely to be cops, be it city, state or federal. There is no justification for this. None. If it is a law, and someone is coming to enforce it, you take your day in court. You get a lawyer. You write your congressman. You do not shoot the enforcer. Period, full stop.

By expressing his willingness to kill men who are doing their lawful duty, Erickson exposes himself as an enemy of society. Society, not the amorphous "state". He is willing to kill men who are following the law, because he does not want to follow it. Is he responsible for the three dead cops in Pittsburgh? No. He will be responsible for the cops he so blithely claims he will kill.

Now I grant you Erickson may be lying. He may surrender meekly, despite his rhetoric. However, if he is not lying, then he is exactly the same as the Pittsburgh shooter. It's not a "thought crime" if you actually plan to carry it out. That would be called conspiracy.

As far as the black nationalists - if they are advocating killing cops, as Erickson is, then they deserve nothing but condemnation.

by Neef 2009-04-06 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

Ice-T "Cop Killer".

Please discuss.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

Ice T is not a political commentator. It is no different than watching a mafia movie where the mafia members are the defacto heroes.

Besides, if you are black person being harassed by the cops, you have more legitimate rage than a white guy who whines about losing rights when there is no real evidence to back that up. There is a basis in truth that cops have treated black much worse than whites for a while. There is no basis in truth that the new President will make us a muslim country, or he will make US a communist or socialist country, or that he will make America a very dangerous place to live in as terrorists will start coming to America left and right. This is baseless hysteria with the pure motive of not expressing anger, but fueling paranoia.

I would say this. When Reginald Denny got assaulted brutally, if there were any black leaders or radio hosts who condoned blind retaliation regardless of who the white victims were in the aftermath of Rodney King, then by all means throw the book at them too. I thought Maxine Waters low moment came during the Reginald Denny case.

by Pravin 2009-04-07 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

Besides, if you are black person being harassed by the cops, you have more legitimate rage than a white guy who whines about losing rights when there is no real evidence to back that up.

To me this is the most dangerous part of this diary.  i.e. Our Rage is More Justified than Their Rage.

I can accept that the black community is upset with the criminal justice system in this country and that sometimes this will express itself as violence.  But then I must also accept that their is a certain black-helicopter element to society that will be upset by things like gun control and raids on the Branch Davidian compound.  I'm not trying to paint a false equivalency here, but I'm also not willing to blindly justify violence (or incitations to violence) on the left while simultaneously condemning them on the right.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

In the case of Ice-T , it was a one off album. He is likely to engage his fans on loving sex or hos or whatever.
In the case of these right wing sites, it is the degree to which they reinforce.

It is a combination of many factors for me where the right wing sites just tow the line just a tad.
Plus it is not about our rage being worse than others rage. In the case of the Branch Davidians outrage, that is only part of the outrage factor. They combine that with a totally fake outrage story and reinforce with more rhetoric bulding it up to a crescendo instead of a one off rant by a non political entertainer whose song is pretty direct.

I would compare the right wing stuff more  with the rhetoric by some black miilitants who would come up with paranoid stories to buttress existing racist claims. There was some irresponsible black leadership during the Denny incident. But even those were not as incessant, on the average, as some of the right wing stuff I see these days.

by Pravin 2009-04-07 01:40PM | 0 recs
Hold up

I don't accept that, and I'm black. Violence is violence, and having lived around it perhaps I hate it even more. Living under the constant threat of sudden death brutalizes people.

It deeply offends me to see this casually lethal rhetoric from people who in all likelihood live in violence-free areas. This inane belief that their guns are "freedom", as if the tranquility and safety of their neighborhoods means nothing.

There are many places - far too many - where everyone is packing, and you know...they die just the same.

by Neef 2009-04-07 08:20PM | 0 recs
I mentioned exactly that song

in a comment two days before the killing.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2009/4/2/11 113/79646/4#4

by Neef 2009-04-07 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry--no soap

"Cop Killer" was a metal song.

by Jess81 2009-04-08 06:16PM | 0 recs
The Unabomber...

...is more politically problematic.  His manifesto was heavily Rousseauian (we talked about it in my Poli Philo class) which simultaneously makes him far left and far right.  There's no real American analogue.  So he is really his own type of critter.

I do fully agree that McVeigh is owned by the right, though.  So I agree with the general point but not the specific Unabomber reference.

by AZphilosopher 2009-04-06 09:40PM | 0 recs
My problem

with him being classified as left AND right, is that the scorn heaped upon classically liberal principles is not balanced by scorn for classically conservative ones. His worst criticism ofthe Right is that the "conservatives are fools". That's not unlike how many hard-right persons feel about Republicans.

If I believe that liberals are fools (which I sometimes do), and that conservatives are evil deadly scum, I think it would be appropriate to classify me as more sympathetic to the Left than to the Right.

Just my opinion though.

by Neef 2009-04-06 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Unabomber...

You think he's closer to Rousseau than Bakunin?  It's way off the subject, but I'm curious.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Unabomber...

the unabomber manifesto

View #'s 5, 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 60, 77,118, 121,122, 136, 143, 148, 151

Tell me this is not some combination of the Emile and the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.

If one views these works as compatible at all, you get someone who is ultra-left in diagnosing the damage civilization exacts but proposes ultra right solutions to try to put the genie back into the bottle.

This is some of the same ambivalence found in his manifesto.  Society has caused all of these problems yet there is an appropriate amount of socialization.

The problem with this reading of Rousseau is that it presupposes those two works can be brought into harmony.

by AZphilosopher 2009-04-07 01:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

Actually in colleges the left has been responsible for some hysteria and are too quick to demonize others who do not agree with them. Don't assume all of us who bash the right wing talkers are excusing the behavior on the left when that happens.

I support free speech. But I also want to hold people accountable. In recent months, I have heard way too many examples of code language used to incite people to the point of desperation when it comes to dealing with an Obama presidency. These talk show radio people know very well what effect their words are having on their audiences. Imagine if I had a violent friend whose wife is being distant with him. She may not be cheating, but I keep putting such thoughts into his head, and then I keep playing with his mind by bringing him to a boiling point by taking tiny examples of real life and mixing with outrageous bits of fiction just so I can make a point. I know what effect my words have on this guy's perception of his wife. I would be morally partially responsible if this guy went and gunned down his wife because he mistakenly thought his wife cheated on him and was making fun of his shortcomings to the guy she was cheating on when in reality and furthermore, she was taking their shared money and giving it to her lover. All of these would be fake, but I planted those ideas in him without even explicitly listing all of those items. But my intention was to get him to think of those items. He goes and then guns down his wife. I can't just plead ignorance.

This is how deviious the right wingers have become. They are taking highly inflammatory false ideas and exagerrating them further inciting their listeners.

This doesnt mean a right winger can't say "I hate Obama. I wish he fails." as Rush does. I support his right to say it even if I think he is an idiot for saying it. The issue we are dealing with in terms of the police shootings is far more nefarious on part of hte right wing hosts. They are creating fiction to rile us up.

by Pravin 2009-04-06 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

Okay, but how many deaths have been caused by leftist wingnuts in the past 20 years?

Any?  One?  

This has been happening once every couple of months since late last year.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

Ah, only the past twenty count?  

Well, the Unabomber, for starters, but if you want to count a neo-Nazi white boy shooting cops as a result of incitement by right-wing radio, then you'd have to count as a result of "revolutionary" rhetoric some of the cops killed by young black men who view police as pigs and enforcers for "the man."  

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

You act like I'm using remotely recent history as some sort of arbitrary cutoff point.  The fact is that left-wing violence, outside of your fantasies about young black men "offing the pigs" is virtually non-existant.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 05:55PM | 0 recs
Fantasies?

Yeah, well I worked in prisons as a therapist and I can tell you that it's not a matter of fantasies.  It may be an after-the-fact justification, or maybe not, but it is definitely part of the rhetoric.

But left-wing violence is also displayed by groups such as ELF and ALF, and was very present in the bombing of Army Recruiting stations in recent years, such as Times Square on 3/6/08.  

I agree that right-wing terrorism is a bigger problem in the U.S. today but the larger point is that advocates of racial justice, even militant black nationalists, are not responsible for the actions of a single misguided cop-killer, and environmentalists aren't responsible for the the use of napalm and other explosives by ELF.    

Why do I get the feeling you've never been too close to a murderer?

But let's look at the case of leftist hero, Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Are you familiar with his case?  He is a convicted cop-killer whose death sentence was recently overturned.  I support a new trial for him because of some very shaky testimony at the original trial, BUT he has been lionized in many quarters for a

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Fantasies?

The people who lionize abu Jamal believe him to be innocent - you won't find anyone who loves his recordings AND thinks he's guilty.  They all think he was framed for his political activity.

If you agree that right-wing terrorism is a bigger problem, then why are we having this argument?  

Anyway, I don't know what your idea of "too close" is, but under most definitions you'd be wrong.  I used the word fantasies because I have never in my life heard anyone use the phrase "the man" who wasn't being tongue-in-cheek, so the whole thing rang false.  For that matter, I've never heard anyone who wasn't white call cops "pigs", but it's not absurd on its face.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Fantasies?

In the case of Abu Jamal, I do think some of the leftists geniunely believe that he is framed. But I doubt everyone did their research. I don't see how it is an open and shut case that he is NOT guilty.It's like he just fits their narrative they have latched on to.  I actually agree with Thaddeus on this.

I have called cops Pigs and so have some of my black friends. And for that matter, my white friends too. I do think cops in NYC have committed murder, as in the case of 41 Shots case and a few others. That whole wallet thing is such bullshit. For some reason, I have this feeling that if this psycho were black, he would not have left the house alive, vest or no vest.

by Pravin 2009-04-07 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fantasies?

I don't disagree with you - the point I was making was in the case of Abu Jamal, you don't have people lionizing him as a cop killer - the people who lionize him think he's INNOCENT.  Which sort of undermines Thaddeus' point.

Whether or not he actually is is irrelevant.  To use perhaps not the best analogy, there are some anti-semitic Christians who worship someone who was, objectively speaking, Jewish.  That fact does not stop them from being anti-semites.

by Jess81 2009-04-07 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fantasies?

A better analogy... I know of some fairly racist folks (no, not Klan member n-word out of their mouths every five minutes racists, more latent types) who think Alan Keyes is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And the first thing they'll say when you bust them saying something kinda racist is, "Hey, I'm not racist!!!  I respect Alan Keyes!!!  If I were really racist, how could I respect a black man???"

by Obamaphile 2009-04-08 07:59AM | 0 recs
Close to the street?

You have unintentionally answered my question.  If you have never heard a black person say "the man" without it being tongue-in-cheek, then you've spent more time with intellectuals and hipsters than with the folks I'm talking about.  In other words, you really DON'T know.  

by Thaddeus 2009-04-07 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Close to the street?

I think if you climb out from your ivory tower, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone use that phrase.  In the past 20 years anyway.

by Jess81 2009-04-08 06:13PM | 0 recs
Sorry

I'm with Jess81 on this one. "The Man" went out with Diffren't Strokes and "Dy-no-mite"! Frankly, I don't think there is a recent term for "the establishment", since said establishment is irrelevant to inner city life (except insofar as it's represented by police, landlords, utility companies etc).

by Neef 2009-04-08 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous

And your inclusion of the unibomber is a non sequitor.  When did anti-government luddites become leftists?

Where in the entire left can you find any echoes of Ted Kaczinski's manifesto?

by Jess81 2009-04-06 05:59PM | 0 recs
OMG
I grew up with leftist anti government types. Are you high?  Or is it that you are only 25 and don't have any real life experience?
I am starting to believe we should raise the voting age to 30,
by Teacher1956 2009-04-06 09:04PM | 0 recs
How many people did they kill?

by DTOzone 2009-04-06 10:21PM | 0 recs
Sorry your friends suck

but the 60s are over, maaaaaan.

by JJE 2009-04-07 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: OMG

Wow. You just disparaged people on another thread for giving you ad hominems instead of arguments and now look at you.

The hypocrisy drips off of you like flop sweat.

by Spiffarino 2009-04-07 07:02AM | 0 recs
Oh wait....

Whoa, you did it on THIS thread. It's even worse than I thought.

by Spiffarino 2009-04-07 07:21AM | 0 recs
Oh, man

Unabomber was proposed by OP as example of right-wing terrorism.  That is ridiculous.  Not a perfect leftist?  Yeah, you're right.  And the Pittsburgh cop-killer doesn't show the respect for law enforcement typical of the political right.   Jeebus.

by Thaddeus 2009-04-06 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, man

I didn't take that to be his meaning - he asked for a progressive version of the unibomber, whereas you explicitly included him as a member of the left.

It's a simple point at any rate: right-wing rhetoric is getting more violent, and there are more and more incidents of right-wing violence.  Your counter that all groups commit violence misses the point: trends and quantity matter.

by Jess81 2009-04-06 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, man

more and more incidents of rightwing violence

such as?  The Pittsburgh guy.  Ok.  That's one.  Others?  (I'm thinking domestic violence, not the international terrorist variety).

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, man

Short term memory loss?

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."

by Obamaphile 2009-04-08 08:06AM | 0 recs
More from that same story:

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Police Chief Sterling Owen said.

Adkisson was a loner who hates "blacks, gays and anyone different from him," longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel.

Sounds like a complicated story.  What drives someone to throw their whole life away like this?  I don't know.  You don't either.

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 08:54AM | 0 recs
The "Political" Right isn't what worries

The politicians and pundits on the right aren't as direct a threat as the right-wing extremists. However, it is the political right, as you describe it, that reinforces the extremists' feelings of victimization. The Tim McVeighs, Jim Adkissons and Rich Poplawskis of this nation are emboldened by the rhetoric of Bachmann, Malkin, Beck and all the rest of the screaming heads. They serve to validate the extreme right wing's victimology and help make it "OK" for a few nuts to take violent action.

Your points about extremists on the left are true and crazies from either side deserve no apologies, but the left-wing extremists have not been a threat in this country for decades. The same can't be said about the extreme right.

by Spiffarino 2009-04-07 07:17AM | 0 recs
look at the number of comments on
this diary compared the number of comments on other topics.  What has spurred this huge participation?  Hatred of (and cluelessness or lies about) Sarah Palin and the right in general.  This says something about this site and it's not flattering.
Palin for those of you who are still clueless is a rather moderate republican... look it up.
The right is no more hateful and clueless than my fellow lefties are these days.
by Teacher1956 2009-04-07 07:09AM | 0 recs
What has spurred this huge participation?

Come on now. And "hatred of the right" is your best answer? What is going on with you, your thought process is baffling.

Oh, and...Pittsburgh. Obviously. The hypothetical has become more real to some of us. My daughter had a sleepover 5 blocks from the shooting. Luckily they were out at a restaurant while it was happening.

by Neef 2009-04-07 07:59AM | 0 recs
Hatred has nothing to do with it...

it's you Teachy...

You're like watching a slow motion train-wreck in High Defination?

I want to avert my eyes, but the image is...

Well, my GF has a term for folks like you, she is in the public health sector, Health Care Training for Women, she and her company have been fighting retrograde stalking horses like Sarah Palin her entire career. Women who carry the water for men, against women's freedoms and rights.

It's such a nice spin, she seems so admireable, as she does the dirty work for the patriarchly bastards in her party...

She calls self-defined Liberal right-wing enablers like you

 "Mesmerizingly Appalling"

We have to stare, because we just can not believe the train wreck that is you!

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-07 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: look at the number of comments on

Yeah, I'm trying to picture my conservative Catholic parents who were crazy about Sarah Palin taking up arms against the government.

Maybe after they finish the crossword puzzle.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: look at the number of comments on

The right is no more hateful and clueless than my fellow lefties are these days.

Then perhaps you need to rethink where your political ideology lies and go be a Republican.

Redstate.com would surely welcome you with open arms.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

by Obamaphile 2009-04-08 08:11AM | 0 recs
In case you don't know her history....

FYI, Teacher is a long time poster, a bitter Puma.

Obama is a race baiting monster who stole "her gals" rightful nomination, and the democratic party are traitors and fellow travelers.

Hence, her continual rant about the Hate of the Left.

It's all always about Hillary, and Teachers hate for the inadequate black male in the Whitehouse.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-08 09:06AM | 0 recs
This is silly

Just the day before this incident, 14 people were killed in Binghamton, NY by gasp an immigrant.  The very same logic used in this diary could be used to say that we need to let less people into this country because they are, after all, killers.  In the recent spate of multiple murders (Alabama, New York, Pittsburgh, California, etc) I can't really see a pattern of political philosophy.

I think it's entirely within bounds to say that we need tougher gun laws, that mental health should be made a higher priority, and that people should be encouraged to keep an eye out for these potential powder kegs.  But to blame this kind of sociopathology on political philosophy seems counterproductive, and likely to lead to some serious crow-eating the next time an avowed leftist carries out something like this.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: This is silly

likely to lead to some serious crow-eating the next time an avowed leftist carries out something like this.

Oh, you mean like the last time some leftist did something like this... what back in the 1960s, more than 40 years ago?

This guy was clearly a rightwing nutjob whose sociopathy was influenced by his political ideology.

As was the case with the Tennessee church shooter last summer.

As was the case with Tim McVeigh.

As was the case with Waco.

As was the case with Ruby Ridge.

More than 200 people have died in the past 2 decades at the hands of violent rightwing kooks fueled by their rightwing political whackjobbery.

Can you name ONE instance in which the actions of someone driven by far left political zealotry has led to a single death in the U.S. in the past 25 years?  30 years?

by Obamaphile 2009-04-08 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: This is silly

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  If you want to talk Ruby Ridge or Timothy McVeigh (I think the Branch Davidian thing was a little different), then I'm on board.  But I don't think you assign blame on these solo-acting nuts.  The problem is that this same logic could be used in almost any instance to assign blame.  It's a lazy way to make your case and it isn't convincing.

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

More has to be made of it.

More people have to call into shows.   I call in to wingnut shows.   More letters to editors have to be made.  More rightwing pols have to be put on the spot ... "do you agree with so and so, do you agree we need a revolution."

Tie the talkers to the pols.   It was being done very nicely weeks ago putting them on the spot with Limpbaugh.

But they am radio mouthbreathers are certainly talking in code, "how much more can we take", and in not so much code, "rise up", "revolution" etc.

by RichardFlatts 2009-04-07 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

I don't disagree with this from a political perspective, but let's not start believing this rhetoric.  Otherwise, I rue the day when someone goes nuts and kills a bunch of people and they find out he used to frequent MYDD!  Then where would I post my two-cents worth?

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

Have you ever called for revolution against the government?   I haven't.

I think Democrats tend to be loyal to the flag.

by RichardFlatts 2009-04-07 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

But the problem with this diary is that it is conflating a domestic violence incident that turned very, very ugly with armed revolution against the government.  I'm guessing most gang members do not have strongly-held anti-american views.  And maybe not even any strongly developed political views at all.  But this doesn't make gang violence any less real.  And, further, someone could (and I'm sure they do somewhere) conflate the fact that many gang members are black, and that most people in the black community vote Democratic, to mean that Democrats incite violence among a certain segment.  

This is a losing argument.  Chiefly because it just isn't grounded in reality.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

That would be like conflating the facts that most serial killers are white, and that white people vote predominately Republican, to mean that Republicans sponsor ritualized violence.

But no one has.  What was my point?  Oh yeah - I hate when people take hypotheticals and just run right the fuck off the deep end with them.  I can post some Mobb Deep lyrics too if you'd like.

by Jess81 2009-04-07 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Chilling Rise

You mean hypotheticals like the guy in Pittsburgh was a regular at RedState?

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:20PM | 0 recs
Wait

This was hardly just a domestic violence call, this guy was the poster child for right wing militancy. Bullet proof vest, AK-47, Stormfront, fear of the gubmint.

And even if we ignore this example, I posted an actual statement from the owner of Redstate that specifically indicates a willingness to shoot government employees.

This is not a peripheral or inaccurate conflation by any means. I can't tell you how many of my co-workers have used the phrase "2nd Amendment is the reset button on the Constitution". How many of them have even thought through what that implies?

But they hear it all the time, it's a meme that they pass along with the emails such.

by Neef 2009-04-07 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait

I remember when John Walker Lindh (I think that was his name) was captured in Afghanistan and it became public that he was from Merin County, CA.  The home of Berkeley, CA.  It took Bill O'Reilly approximately fifteen minutes to whip up some theory about how the Leftist rhetoric at Berkeley led to that moment in history.  He was wrong.

This diary is wrong too.  One screwball does not a pattern make.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:47PM | 0 recs
It's not just one mollusk

It's one that acted. Many have expressed their willingness to act. I point, again to the Erickson comment.

He's ready to kill cops, bottom line. Do you see that as irrelevant?

by Neef 2009-04-08 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

Expressing willingness to act and then actually destroying your whole life over a few percentages income tax increase are entirely different things.

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

Gordon Liddy is a good example too.

On August 26, 1994, Liddy told his radio listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." Liddy's advice that day was explicit: "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2505

More on the crazy that is Liddy:

http://www.motleymoose.com/showDiary.do? diaryId=340

by fogiv 2009-04-08 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

I guess that means Powalski must have listened to that broadcast.  Why else would he do this?

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

NO, that's not the point.  The point is that there's much more of this hate and violence advocating coming from the right.  It could be that there's simply fewer left wing voices on the radio, TV, and print media, but there's no sense in denying that it's there.

by fogiv 2009-04-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

I've never denied that it's there.  I'm saying that I can't see the straight-line connection between Michelle Malkin and Poplowski.  And it's particularly ironic given the recent spate of mass killings where we have no idea what the motive was.

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not just one mollusk

I'm not arguing a straight line connection either, merely providing more corroborative information supporting the notion that the right wing has, and continues to, foster a culture of dissent that encourages violence.

by fogiv 2009-04-08 09:26AM | 0 recs
If we

were running around giving each other tips on the best way to pierce ATF body-armor, and bragging about how many rounds we'd put thru some government lackey, then we darn sure would deserve some blame.

by Neef 2009-04-07 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: If we

I don't want to pick on rap here, but it is an awfully easy target.  I'm guessing you're not of the generation where most small-town white teenage males listen to at least some gangsta rap music.  It was NWA and Ice-T for me.  But Snoop Dogg works pretty well too.

"Dre got some b*tches from the city of Compton
To serve me
Not with a cherry on top
'Cause when I bust my nut, you know I'm ragin' to pop a cop."

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: If we

Why do I get the feeling that you just wanted to type those lyrics, and the point was secondary?  Because I'm laughing at how Snoop just became an honorary leftist.

On the subject of other famous leftists, there's a scene in the Godfather where the Michael Corleone shoots a cop in the head.  You will find many such incidents in art, music, and literature, both popular and classic.

by Jess81 2009-04-07 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: If we

Alright, maybe I did just want to type those lyrics.  

Elsewhere, though, I do make the point that you could use some really twisted logic to say that gangsta rap leads to gang violence and that because this is more prominent in the black communtiy, which votes heavily Democratic, that Democratic values somehow incite violence in a segment of the population.  Twisted, yes.  But I'm sure someone has made this point.  

The truth is, violent crime is hard to pin down.  What is the root cause of violent crime?  Is it the breakdown of the traditional family?  Is it right-wing hack talking points?  Is it income inequality?  Is it drug addiction?  Is it gangsta rap?  I don't know.  You don't either.

So, there's a guy in Pittsburgh who is way into rightwing militia crap and one day he flips his lid and kills three cops.  What caused this incident?  Michelle Malkin?  RedState?

The day before someone killed 14 people in Binghamton, NY.  He was an immigrant.  Maybe he became violent because, you know, that's just how immigrants are after all.

I use these absurd examples to place this diary in a context.  If you're going to ascribe blame to political philosophy for this incident, why not in other incidents?  What was the political motivation of the guy in Alabama?  Do we know?  Was it relevant?

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:17PM | 0 recs
Way ahead of you man

I posted this comment:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2009/4/2/11 113/79646/4#4

two days before the shooting. This is not a game anyone wins. I grew up in a bad-cop city, if the truth be told, and I am no fan of urban law enforcement. That is light years different from it being acceptable to kill these people while they're doing their jobs.

But you know what? It's not just the killing, although of course that's the main issue. It's the trying to pretend the killing is patriotic that is so revolting.

by Neef 2009-04-07 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Way ahead of you man

But the bottom line is that this diary is trying to draw a line from this incident in Pittsburgh to the rightwing clatter.  That's just not a convincing argument to me and we leave ourselves open to similar criticisms the next time someone with leftist political views commits a crime.  Or maybe we can just conveniently pull out this example when a radical rightwinger commits a crime.

by the mollusk 2009-04-07 09:27PM | 0 recs
I think what you're missing

is that we should be open to criticism next time someone commits a crime that we encourage. The "we encourage" part is important. Part of the point of the discussion is how communities do need to take some responsibility for what they espouse. It seems like you want us to be free of such responsibility, by freeing the Right of it.

We also have our crazies and we should be mindful of the effects of our views. If Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddows start espousing armed revolution, I want us to want them to stop.

That's for your second point. For your first, if you simply don't believe political positions influence this sort of behavior, then you don't. Personally I can't think of a more convincing argument than the Pittsburgh loon. But, we can agree to disagree of course.

by Neef 2009-04-08 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I think what you're missing

I guess it feels like this diary is jumping the gun and trying to draw a link based on almost no data.  I'm getting the sense from your comments that this is more about an overall climate of violent language across the political spectrum.  I have a much easier time understanding your perspective.

by the mollusk 2009-04-08 06:57AM | 0 recs
I get the theoritical discussion of Right v Left

and the balance of nuts on both ends of the spectrum...

But the reality is the FAR RIGHT are the ones stocking up on guns and ammo...So much that NPR did a story from a large gun shop in Texas, with the owner saying, and he called it "Obama day (he meant election day) they can't keep guns and ammo on the shelf.

He related the story of one 65 year old grandma who ordered " a life time supply of ammo" for her AK-47 before Obama could come and take it away..

Then at the end, when the NPR reporter asked him the general question why, the owner went on a pitch perfect Glenn Beck Rant, about socialism, and government control, and Obama handing money to those who don't work for a living, and the democrats conficating all the guns..

This is not a net rumor, this is really happening.

The right wing IS connected to the echo chamber and the message from the echo chamber is telling them that their way of life is in imminent danger!

From Michelle Bachmann talking about reeduction camps, and Beck wailing about gun confiscation, this is not political talk to these crazies, these are real life events already happening.

The point here is, does ANYONE think the political leaning of those loading up so much on guns and ammos that guns shops are almost alway out of those items are left leaning Democrat?

I get the argument in theory, that the left and right BOTH have had and WILL have extremist radicals on each end of the spectrum.

But, anyone that is denying WHO is getting the talking points, and who is acting out simply is not paying attention to the reality on the ground.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-08 07:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads