OLIVER WILLIS: IRRATIONAL CERTAINTY
This is surely one of the dumbest thing any blogger has ever written anywhere:
The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.
I’m sorry, but when someone like Oliver Willis - already suffering from a lack of logic and an overabundance of stupidity - tells us flat out with no qualifiers whatsoever that the shooter in Pittsburgh carried out his mass murder of police officers because “conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America” forced him “over the edge,” I can’t sit by allow that kind of contemptible calumny go by without some kind of comment.
What “conspiracy theories?” Name them Oliver. Which “mainstream” conservative media outlets? Not Michael Savage or Alex Jones. Like, real mainstream blogs, TV shows, newspaper columnists, editorials, or other media. Just one?
He can’t do it because there are none. Projection is reflection in this case and Willis seems to have a difficult time being able to define “conspiracy theory.” For instance, he believes if you oppose the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, you believe there is a “conspiracy” to reinstate it. Willis also believes that if you oppose gun restrictions that have been proposed by several Obama appointees in the past - including his own Attorney General - this makes you a conspiracy monger. And it isn’t only a problem with definitions. Willis also pimped the story that circulated for about 4 hours on liberal blogs that the Tea Parties were part of a vast, right wing, conspiracy. Apparently, Willis can’t even recognize what a conspiracy is and is something of a conspiracy monger himself.
So Oliver might want to become better informed before he wildly accuses mainstream conservative outlets of promoting “conspiracy theories.” The Obama is a Muslim - wasn’t born here - fake birth certificate - is a terrorst - crew are relegated to the fringes of conservatism with most mainstream conservatives condemning the idiocy.
But beyond Willis’ usual hysteria and laughable hyperbole, there is this fantastical notion shared by many on the left that they have insight into people’s souls not granted to us mere mortals. Willis can make an extraordinarily bald faced statement that the reason the Pittsburgh killer acted was because he was infuenced by right wing blather - without so much as “we think” this is so or “many believe” this is what he thought - because many liberals think themselves qualified psychiatrists or better yet, “diviners of their neighbor’s intent.” It is a heavy burden Oliver and other liberals carry, this almost psychic ability to peer into other men’s souls and glean motivations that we ordinary folk are not vouchsafed the ability to use.
This gift comes in especially handy when peeriing into the confused, diseased mind of someone like the Pittsburgh cop killer. A battery of trained psychiatrists couldn’t tell you exactly why or even when this fellow snapped, why reason and logic left him and caused him to murder 3 policemen. But Oliver Willis and his liberal friends who are also blessed with this second sight can do so.
As I mentioned in my post yesterday, Willis’s statement of fact runs into a small problem; the man was using the police to commit suicide:
Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, “Eddie, I am going to die today. … Tell your family I love them and I love you.”
Perkovic said: “I heard gunshots and he hung up. … He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot.”
That does not sound like someone driven “over the edge” by gun crazy Republicans. It sounds like any other individual contemplating suicide. And the fact that Willis and other liberals feel absolutely no shame in trying to make political hay against their foes by standing on the dead bodies of three policemen is so far beyond the pale of reasoned discourse that it nauseates me because I feel it necessary to respond for the second time in two days to this utter tripe.
I urged conservatives yesterday to tone down some of the rhetoric about Obama because frankly, no one can tell what effect some of the rantings of Alex Jones or Michael Savage or even some fringe bloggers might have on the mentally ill that walk our streets. But that is a far cry from saying flat out that the Pittsburgh shooter acted because Republicans “encourage people to shoot cops.” That kind of hysterical hyperbole has been the hallmark of Willis’s blogging career which is why he is so popular on the left. Mindless, partisan hackery goes over very well with liberals as it does with conservatives.
Very much like reading your blog and find myself in agreement with about 80% of what you write.
However, when you write, “The Obama is a Muslim - wasn’t born here - fake birth certificate - is a terrorst - crew are relegated to the fringes of conservatism”
That’s just not true. Elements of each of those stories have run on mainstream blogs, such as Redstate, and while I could agree that Hannity and Limbaugh may not be The Weekly Standard, you can’t say they aren’t mainstream - given their audience.
Comment by Vincent — 4/6/2009 @ 1:35 pm
By the very same token, Rick, giving Willis any play in your blog is fomenting the same kind of hate that Willis is supposedly condemning. Just say “NO” to responding to the Kryptonite Made of Stupidity. Remember, Willis is an idiot.
Comment by Two Dogs — 4/6/2009 @ 1:54 pm
By Willis’ reasoning, what prompted someone like Phil Spector to [allegedly] kill the young woman in his mansion? He had a long history with guns and he surely doesn’t strike me a conservative. How about the HuffPo writer who killed her lover and then took her own life? Liberals all.
If libs had any sense, they’d realize the real conspiracy is the left-wing conspiracy. Even outlets like Politico are beginning to admit there are strange situations around many of Obama’s appointees’ ties to the finance world.
I’ve always thought you could make a really fine left-wing conspiracy movie if for no other reason than that faction’s creativity knows no bounds.
People kill people because they don’t honor the sanctity of life. Period.
best, Kay B. Day
Comment by Kay B. Day — 4/6/2009 @ 1:57 pm
Anyone who sees Glen Beck or listens to Hannity has heard some nutso conspiracies on there and that’s a fact I’m just amazed anyone can ignore.
Name the “nutso” conspiracy theories promoted on those shows. Name one. And document it please - with quotes. You think I’m going to take your word for it or rely on your analysis? Dream on.
ed.
Comment by p — 4/6/2009 @ 2:20 pm
“By Willis’ reasoning, what prompted someone like Phil Spector to [allegedly] kill the young woman in his mansion? He had a long history with guns and he surely doesn’t strike me a conservative. How about the HuffPo writer who killed her lover and then took her own life? Liberals all.”
Sigh. Was that really his reasoning? Really?
“The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
Again, ALL your doing is citing non-conservatives who did bad stuff. What in Jeebus’ name is your point? Did you read this before pushing post? The whole thesis behind what he wrote is that the paranoid “Obama is taking our guns” meme was eaten up like a Grand-Slam Breakfeast from this guy who had this propoganda as his MOTIVATION for his craziness.
Kay, either cite to wear Spector or the Huffpo blogger were EGGED ON in their craziness by objectivelly false fears circulating in the liberal community, or go to a Logic 101 class in one of those brainwashing liberal universities.
“Motivation for his craziness?” Where’s your evidence? Show me the psyche reports not some impression of a reporter. Jesus Christ where do you people get your fucking arrogance? You have no clue what set that guy off - something you would know if you had bother to read what I wrote.
ed.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 2:22 pm
Name the “nutso” conspiracy theories promoted on those shows.
“Beck claims “we’ve been on this road” to “fascism” “since Teddy Roosevelt”
His evidence is the design on a dime.
Yes…BUT WHAT’S “THE CONSPIRACY?” You really don’t have a clue what a conspiracy theory is, do you? If someone disagrees with you, it’s a conspiracy, right?
Beck said we’ve been on this road to “fascism” since 1916. He didn’t say it was a conspiracy. He made an idiotic reference to the dime having the same symbol as fascist Italy. Perhaps you can help me understand how that translates into a group of people plotting clandestinely to bring fascism to the United States. The fact that Beck is an ignoramous and had no clue that there was no such thing as fascism in 1916 is beside the point. I got no sense that he was positing a conspiracy theory out of his nonsense. He was making a point about big government.
ed.
Comment by Oliver Willis — 4/6/2009 @ 2:33 pm
“He was really into politics and really into the First and Second amendment. One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples’ right to defend themselves. He never spoke of going out to murder or to kill,” said Edward Perkovic, who described himself as Mr. Poplawski’s lifelong best friend.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960750-53.stm
Found in 30 seconds, with “teh google.”
“You have no clue what set that guy off” vs.
This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
Can you say strawman?
PS: childish name calling within 3 lines and 5 minutes of my comment, is it weird I feel validated?
Can you say, “I don’t know what a strawman is but it sure makes me sound like I’m intelligent?” I set up no strawman. You are taking upon yourself the role of psychiatrist and I am simply calling you and Willis idiots for doing so.
You cannot make a flat, declarative determination about what set the guy off. That is ridiculous on its face. You are taking the psychological analysis by a reporter and the guy’s best friend - neither professionally trained - of a very disturbed individual for God’s sake! It’s laughable.
Stick with your banal rants against conservatives and leave psychiatry to the professionals please.
ed.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 2:36 pm
What “conspiracy theories?”
Might be refering to this stuff.
Yeah - real mainstream. It’s what all the cool conservatives are reading.
ed.
Comment by Richard Bruce Cheney — 4/6/2009 @ 3:01 pm
I got no sense that he was positing a conspiracy theory out of his nonsense.
Then clearly you’ve got a problem with reading comprehension that goes far beyond me.
Comment by Oliver Willis — 4/6/2009 @ 3:06 pm
“You have no clue what set that guy off” vs.
This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
“You cannot make a flat, declarative determination about what set the guy off. That is ridiculous on its face.” -When did Willis do this? please cite.
This is getting ridiculous. Is this a parody site that I’m just not getting? This is about as textbook a strawman argument as there is. I pointed it out and you did it AGAIN minutes later. NO ONE is saying that the 100% false hysteria created about Obama taking ppl’s guns made him do what he did. He was clearly nuts before Obama was even elected. ALL the evidence points to the hyped, false hysteria being a FACTOR though. That’s the point we’ve been making that you seen totally unable to grasp. Your arms must be extremely sore from moving these goalposts.
“The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation.”
You’re right - my bad. No flat declarative statement there. Full of weasel words, no?
You are incorrect. Willis is, in fact saying “the 100% false hysteria created about Obama taking ppl’s guns made him do what he did.” And can we please differentiate between those who point out that there are several Obama Justice Department appointees with a record of advocating very strict controls on guns? No, not confiscating them. But with typical leftist obfuscation, you are making a serious argument ridiculous by pointing to the extremists rather than the vast majority who are troubled by such appointments. This is not conspiracy mongering - not when the statements are on the record.
And when you say “ALL THE EVIDENCE” are you or are you not talking about press reports? What kind of “evidence” is that? A reporter writes that the guy talked about Obama taking his guns and you automatically (knee jerk) leap to the conclusion that this is why he killed the policemen and not because he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him?
Enough. I can’t argue with a bozo who thinks he’s a licensed psychiatrist.
ed.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 3:16 pm
Name the “nutso” conspiracy theories promoted on those shows. Name one. And document it please - with quotes. You think I’m going to take your word for it or rely on your analysis? Dream on.
OK: Glenn Beck has supported the “Amero” theory. Google it. He told the John Birch society “You are starting to make more and more sense to me.”
Of course if you yourself believe that theory, well then you’ll act like it’s a “fact” to you, and my point will be disproven. Funny thing about conspiracy theories.
He was clearly nuts before Obama was even elected. ALL the evidence points to the hyped, false hysteria being a FACTOR though.
Yeah. And I know I sure would feel bad if a crazy person latched on to something incitful and thoughtless I said and hurt someone.
Wouldn’t anybody? Or are there really people who just would keep justifing themselves?
Comment by p — 4/6/2009 @ 3:36 pm
The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.
I def disagree with teh first statement in a vacuum. Anyone who says as much, I also disagree with. The NEXT FREAKIN SENTENCE which you simply must have forgotten to paste as well puts in a little more context, no?
“A reporter writes that the guy talked about Obama taking his guns and you automatically (knee jerk) leap to the conclusion that this is why he killed the policemen and not because he wanted to die and wanted the police to kill him?”
3 for 3 with the strawmen. I’m going to get Guiness on the phone.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 3:44 pm
People, mercy!! Can we just leave it with the ancient Greeks ‘I know that I don’t know’. I don’t even know what craziness goes on in my mind let alone someone else’s. I remember at the first warm day in Spring all the drunks and crazies came out of their winter hideouts in Berlin. All of a sudden men were arguing and screaming at busses or other imaginary folks around them, I’m not kidding, a zoo. Same here, a series of horrific events and it’s a zoo of crazed, know it all, doomsday psychologists. Politics, nah.
Comment by funny man — 4/6/2009 @ 6:59 pm
What “conspiracy theories?”
Might be refering to this stuff.
Yeah - real mainstream. It’s what all the cool conservatives are reading.
ed.
Well it’s what comes up on the first page of a google search for obama gun ban. I guess that’s because all the kool kids are linking to it, or at least that’s how most sane people understand google page ranks. Oh, and glad to see you think the NRA isn’t mainstream. I sure thought it was when they presented that musket to me.
Comment by Richard Bruce Cheney — 4/6/2009 @ 8:38 pm
Look, I was totally wrong to say, “from this guy who had this propaganda as his MOTIVATION for his craziness.” I meant a factor, as my many later posts made clear. I have no blog of my own and write in steam of consciousness, so this was an overstatement on my part. Will YOU admit the same with regards to you saying that, ’m sorry, but when someone like Oliver Willis - already suffering from a lack of logic and an overabundance of stupidity - tells us flat out with no qualifiers whatsoever that the shooter in Pittsburgh carried out his mass murder of police officers because “conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America” forced him “over the edge,” I can’t sit by allow that kind of contemptible calumny go by without some kind of comment.” without quoting the NEXT FREAKIN SENTENCE that put it in context just to make a political point? Either you ignored it out of some near-sighted vision issue which you should see an optometrist for or you did so to further an argument you WISHED the “left” would make so you can shoot it down.
Unlike you, I don’t have to create arguments I wish the “right” would make to shoot them down. So Obama has some ppl who would prefer some gun-control policies in his employment? SO WHAT? Are they the ones setting the policy? Is there any legislation as-such down the pipe? As I’ve begged you before to no avail, PLEASE CITE. Otherwise, quit moving the goalposts and have some common sense.
No, I don’t think those espousing the “Obama wants to take all our guns” meme have blood on their hands (and anyone who says as much I disagree with), I just think they need to take a good fu**in look in the mirror and think about consquences before spreading BS they know to be false next time.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 10:28 pm
A recent mailing from the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, to its members says that Barack Obama wants to ban the possession of handguns, and that “never in NRA’s history have we faced a presidential candidate — and hundreds of candidates running for other offices — with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.”
So, either one of the most influential lobbying groups in US history is lying or or there’s some legislation down the pike that I, a fpr,er Constitutional lawyer (before, admittedly, I sold out to the “man” to pay off my many student loans), am totally unaware of, which is it? I really shouldn’t be indulging you in this change of subject considering Obama or his staff’s stance on gun control NEVER CAME UP until I called you out on your BS regarding the motivation behind this massacre in Pittsburgh.
If you believed you had a square rationalization for believing in Obama’s “plans” to restrict gun ownership, you would have mentioned it way earlier and not until just recently when the hollowness of your argument forced you to equivocate.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/6/2009 @ 10:40 pm
It amazing how some thing get started. I’m old enough to remember the JFK assignation in 1963. I was home that afternoon and taking a nap when my grandmother came in and told me Kennedy had been shot. I immediately when to the TV. In those days there were only 3 major news sources–NBC, CBS, and ABC. I was going back and forth to catch all the news on that shattering event. And I suddenly noticed that they were all picking up on the same theme—Dallas had been a hot bed of right wing activity. The implication being that the killer was part of a vast right wing conspiracy. That continued for sometime, until it was learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed a lefty—had lived in Russia and part of a fair play for Cuba group. Needless to say—then there was no mention of a vast left-wing conspiracy. So the recent events and the coverage of the shootings in NY doesn’t surprise me in the least—its simply par for the course. Thank goodness we do have more news sources now.
Comment by Ron Russell — 4/7/2009 @ 1:02 am
It’s not really fair to call that the dumbest thing ever written by a blogger until we’ve gone through the rest of Oliver Willis’s archives. Not that I’m expecting any volunteers.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 4/7/2009 @ 2:10 am
“Then clearly you’ve got a problem with reading comprehension that goes far beyond me.”
Not even the horizon goes far beyond you.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 4/7/2009 @ 3:06 am
No mainstream ring-wing conspiracy theories? Isn’t that the premise of every Glenn Beck show? He’s the one spouting off about supposed FEMA concentration camps, the black helicopters and those idiotic doomsday scenarios. And Michele Bachmann just suggested Obama’s policies will bring about “re-education camps.” Those are pretty mainstream sources, right? And does Bill O’Reilly go more than a few minutes on his show without referring the the “far left loons” who want to secularize America, abolish Christmas and establish a communist state? Hell, that guy who shot up a church a few months ago pretty much used one of O’Reilly’s books as a bible. And all during the campaign, the lies were spread about Obama being a secret Muslim terrorist and that he’d bring about a total ban on guns. They were picked up by FOX News. The mainstream conspiracies are there for the picking… the the paranoid, angry right is all to eager to harvest them.
Comment by Barry — 4/7/2009 @ 5:52 am
“ALL the evidence points to the hyped, false hysteria being a FACTOR though.”
And ALL the evidence points to the Beatles’ song “Helter Skelter” being a FACTOR in Charles Manson’s murders. But we don’t go around blaming the Beatles for the actions of someone who was clearly insane.
As was pointed out yesterday, Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and had a protective order for abuse sworn out against him by a previous girlfriend. Either of those by itself is sufficient to disqualify a person from legally possessing firearms under current laws. This means that none of Poplawski’s firearms were legal to begin with. Even Bush would have taken the firearms away from Poplawski. That is the objective truth.
In light of those facts, it makes no sense to posit that Poplawski’s actions were the result of a fear that Obama would “take his guns” because ANY politician would have taken away Poplawski’s firearms. He possessed his firearms illegally under current law; there is therefore no rational basis to suppose he would fear additional laws.
Now, the argument can be made that, since Poplawski was insane, he was not thinking rationally and was consequently still influenced by the murmurings of some fringe conservatives about potential firearms restrictions. This may well be so. However, it then brings us back to what I pointed out in the beginning of this post. Namely, that we don’t blame the Beatles for Charles Manson’s actions because Manson was insane and there’s no way to predict what will set off someone who is insane. That’s pretty much what insanity is, complete social unpredictability. An insane person can be set off by something as small as someone not signaling for a lane change on the freeway and it’s ridiculous to try to hold fringe conservatives (as a group) even partially responsible for the actions of a madman.
Comment by Zenmervolt — 4/7/2009 @ 7:45 am
On the certainty of blame…
Right Wing Nuthouse makes a good, though rather vitriolic, point about the allegations that are being thrown around regarding the Oakland, PA shooter’s motivations.
But beyond Willis’ usual hysteria and laughable hyperbole, there is this fantas…
Trackback by Futures and Options — 4/7/2009 @ 8:12 am
If we’re going to put a ‘cost’ on the words of conservatives how about liberals? Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib (for more than a month on the front page!) which gave hope to our enemy that we would lose will. We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.
The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.
Comment by EBJ — 4/7/2009 @ 3:18 pm
Nice to see Allahpundit isn’t alone in urging kid glove treatment for President 666. It deters people like Willis.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 4/7/2009 @ 6:51 pm
To debunk them. Yesterday he had on a guy from Popular Mechanics to debunk a conspiracy theory about a supposed “FEMA death camp” in Indiana, which is actually an Amtrak repair facility.
Now, if you want to argue that he shouldn’t be addressing these urban legends, that’s one thing. But to say he’s promoting them is simply false.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 4/7/2009 @ 11:09 pm
Google Unabomber + Al Gore. If you’re going to hold O’Reilly accountable for that, then presumably you hold Gore accountable for Kaczinski.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 4/7/2009 @ 11:14 pm
As much as I think that Michael Savage is on the fringes of conservative thought, he does not deserve to be lumped in with nutbag Alex Jones. And, Alex Jones should never, ever be called a conservative, right winger or anything of the kind. Jones is a conspiracy nut along with Jeff Rense. These guys are reduced to spewing there conspiricy crap on the internet and or (no offense to you, Rick) or internet talk radio. I do not have to separate myself from Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, et al. They are not conservatives. They are looney tunes.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — 4/8/2009 @ 12:04 am
“As was pointed out yesterday, Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and had a protective order for abuse sworn out against him by a previous girlfriend. Either of those by itself is sufficient to disqualify a person from legally possessing firearms under current laws. This means that none of Poplawski’s firearms were legal to begin with. Even Bush would have taken the firearms away from Poplawski. That is the objective truth.”
-good point
“And ALL the evidence points to the Beatles’ song “Helter Skelter” being a FACTOR in Charles Manson’s murders. But we don’t go around blaming the Beatles for the actions of someone who was clearly insane.”
-gibberish. Did The Beatles, a music band, hold themselves out as qualified arbiters of who or who not should be killed by crazy cults? Do Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush, whoever else hold themselves out as political commentators to be taken seriously, spouting “truths” in the form of “OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR GUNS”? You think that wasnt a TINY false equivocation on your part when a crazy person latches on to one thing and not the other? Either The Beatles were really badmouthing the ppl at Tate Ranch or your response is a false analogy. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Helter Skelter was about a carnival ride Manson interpreted to be about an apocalyptic race war, were LaPierre, Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. comments about Obama’s agenda so laughably misinterpreted? The point is, when you hold yourself out there as a “serious political commentator” you have a degree of responsibility that they all 100% betrayed by pursuing fear-mongering over utter BS to improve ratings. They are somewhat responsible when crazies latch onto that, the Beatles are not.
If that’s your no. 1 analogy for this, then this argument is already over.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/9/2009 @ 9:55 pm
Hah ok well its prob the vodka and the fact the rockets game is over at this point that I’m even dignifying this, but here goes:
“If we’re going to put a ‘cost’ on the words of conservatives how about liberals? Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib (for more than a month on the front page!) which gave hope to our enemy that we would lose will. We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.
The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.”
Ok so members of the media spouting objectively false statements is the same as the media exposing horrible truths in violation of our domestic laws as well as our treaty obligations? Interesting…
“Iraq was a much harder slog than it would have been if the Times hadn’t flogged Abu Ghraib” -cite?
“We accept that, and even the Senate Majority Leader during a shooting war saying that very war was “lost”, because we believe in free speech.” At the time he said that, weren’t like 600k Iraqis dead and a million displaced. I shudder to actually know what your def of lost is. Also, the reason the ancient Romans had a saying to the effect of “you can’t win an occupation” is b/c that’s been common sense for like 3k years.
“The real irony here, though, is that the left will go to great lengths to excuse the most barbaric speech within a mosque.” -They have? please cite. ‘It’s your duty to kill Jews’ apprently isn’t enciting violence.” -its not? Either you don’t think it is or your quoting someone. Please cite.
Comment by Longhorn Jon — 4/9/2009 @ 10:06 pm
The problem I have with your analysis, along with that of some others like Charles at LGF, is that you seem to be operating under a pollyannic notion that rational, reasonable, articulate, policy-oriented conservatives will be treated by the media and the democrat party as…well, rational, reasonable, articulate, policy-oriented conservatives. Whatever one thought of President George W. Bush, he wasn’t an ignorant, lying, murdering, Constitution-shredding despot, but that is precisely how he was treated — by the media, and by the LEADERS of the democrat party, along with its most fringe elements. For that matter, one of our most reasoned, articulate, intelligent conservative voices is Vice President Dick Cheney — and look how far all that reasonableness got him? Which rational conservative voice is being listened to these days? None. And it isn’t because they’re being drowned out by Beck and Limbaugh and the others. If not for those guys, Obama would be governing with virtually no opposition whatsoever. No watchdog media. No thoughtful conservative voices who get any airtime at all unless they’re cheer-leading for Obama. There isn’t a man or woman alive who could rise to the top as a “face of” the conservative point of view who — if he or she fundamentally disagreed with the democrat/media perspective — wouldn’t be viciously vilified. That is what the left does. They “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” I don’t care how “reasonable” your arguments are for another way, if you disagree with these people, they will seek to destroy you, and by the time they’re done, you are a caricatured version of yourself and your message, whatever it was, is lost.
So Beck, et al, are over the top. So what? If they weren’t, and were simply quietly disagreeing with President Obama on a daily basis, they’d be treated with hysterical disdain and character assassination anyway. If their hyperbole and schtick make people sit up and take notice of the hard turn left this country is about to take, isn’t that worth something? I’m perfectly happy to let them be the lightening rods for the left’s smear campaigns and politics of personal destruction while more and more American citizens quietly begin to pay attention. Perhaps when a leader does emerge, the left will be so busy demonizing Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., that they won’t notice the new guy (or gal) until it’s too late.
Comment by Anon — 4/12/2009 @ 6:44 pm