The Big Hate

[Back]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

[ClydeR]

This is just like the people who say that 9/11 was our fault because we did some undefined thing to oppress Muslims in other countries, which stirred them up and caused them to attack us.

[Lumi]

Except for the part where it isn't like that at all.

[Androidpk]

This is just like the people who say that 9/11 was our fault because we did some undefined thing to oppress Muslims in other countries, which stirred them up and caused them to attack us.

The 9/11 attack had a lot to do with Saudi Arabia letting the US Military set up base in their country after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Holy shit, sounded like something Backlash would actually write (with smaller words, but the same nonsense).

[ClydeR]

Holy shit, sounded like something Backlash would actually write (with smaller words, but the same nonsense).

I have long suspected that Back is actually Paul Krugman, and vice versa.

[Fallen]

Clyder's personality, posting style, and general volume of posting has greatly developed since that poll about his identity.

[radamanthys]

Fishing expedition.

However, the government should be scared of its people. It's better than the alternative.

[Back]

Holy shit, sounded like something Backlash would actually write (with smaller words, but the same nonsense).

I know most of the time you’re playing a role here... but does this observation/opinion strike any notes with you?


I have long suspected that Back is actually Paul Krugman, and vice versa.

I’m flattered but no.

And what the hell are you doing with a Frankie Goes to Hollywood quote in your sig? You do realize that the singer of that band was really gay?

[Hulkein]

I laughed out loud at ClydeR's last post.

Jon Voight is the man.

[ClydeR]

Clyder's personality, posting style, and general volume of posting has greatly developed since that poll about his identity.

There was a poll?

[ClydeR]

And what the hell are you doing with a Frankie Goes to Hollywood quote in your sig? You do realize that the singer of that band was really gay?

I don't believe that! If you watch the video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12zxk_frankie-goes-to-hollywood-relax_music), you'll see that the song is a repudiation of second through fourth century Roman culture, specifically repudiating the coliseum death matches between Christians and wild beasts. The video depicts a bar where the patrons recreate Roman culture, complete with an exalted emperor, except that they all wear wacky 80s clothing. In the end, the Christian (the lead singer) tames, instead of killing, the lion (really a tiger in the video). The whole thing is quite inspiring. I don't know why you try to twist everything into something deviant.

[Back]

I don't believe that! If you watch the video (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12zxk_frankie-goes-to-hollywood-relax_music), you'll see that the song is a repudiation of second through fourth century Roman culture, specifically repudiating the coliseum death matches between Christians and wild beasts. The video depicts a bar where the patrons recreate Roman culture, complete with an exalted emperor, except that they all wear wacky 80s clothing. In the end, the Christian (the lead singer) tames, instead of killing, the lion (really a tiger in the video). The whole thing is quite inspiring. I don't know why you try to twist everything into something deviant.

You crack me up, Stan. Laser beans!

[Stanley Burrell]

You crack me up, Stan. Laser beans!

Um, thanks?

[Gan]

Firstly, WTF is the black-helicopter crowd as mentioned in the OP???
http://ui29.gamespot.com/1020/roflcopter_2.jpg




I have long suspected that Back is actually Paul Krugman, and vice versa.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you only knew...

[Androidpk]

Firstly, WTF is the black-helicopter crowd as mentioned in the OP???
http://ui29.gamespot.com/1020/roflcopter_2.jpg





:lol: :lol: :lol:
If you only knew...



I believe the black-helicopter crowd refers to conspiracy theorists.

[Gan]

racist

[Lumi]

I believe the black-helicopter crowd refers to conspiracy theorists.

That.

[Parkbandit]

I know most of the time you’re playing a role here... but does this observation/opinion strike any notes with you?

A guy with a history of being a complete wacko goes into a museum and kills an innocent man.. and idiots like you want to blame the evil Republicans. The only thing close to striking any opinion I have is that liberals are indeed retarded.

[radamanthys]

A guy with a history of being a complete wacko goes into a museum and kills an innocent man.. and idiots like you want to blame the evil Republicans. The only thing close to striking any opinion I have is that liberals are indeed retarded.

And remember, it's whacko, not necessarily extremist. Extremism would be the guy that shot the abortion doc.

As much as liberals would like to believe it, racism (in any form) is not a tenet of the Republican party.

[Back]

A guy with a history of being a complete wacko goes into a museum and kills an innocent man.. and idiots like you want to blame the evil Republicans. The only thing close to striking any opinion I have is that liberals are indeed retarded.

Thats all you took away from the observation? A knee-jerk NO U?


And remember, it's whacko, not necessarily extremist. Extremism would be the guy that shot the abortion doc.

As much as liberals would like to believe it, racism (in any form) is not a tenet of the Republican party.

You obviously read the opinion... yet you contradict yourself in response.

[radamanthys]

You obviously read the opinion... yet you contradict yourself in response.

Extremism in any form is dangerous. How am I contradicting myself?

[Back]

And remember, it's whacko, not necessarily extremist. Extremism would be the guy that shot the abortion doc.

As much as liberals would like to believe it, racism (in any form) is not a tenet of the Republican party.

Whacko and extremism are the same thing.

[Miscast]

http://ui29.gamespot.com/1020/roflcopter_2.jpg
You know she's kinda hot.

[radamanthys]

Whacko and extremism are the same thing.

Untrue. One can be patently 'sane' (well grounded) and still be an extremist. The founding fathers were radical revolutionaries, you may label them extremists today. Abolitionists (i.e. William Wilberforce) were an extremists- are they whacko? There are many other examples.

Having extreme views on a single issue or an entire political ideology does not make one immediately a whacko, (though it is typically an indication save for in extraordinary circumstances). Some/many <> all.

[Back]

Untrue. One can be patently 'sane' (well grounded) and still be an extremist. The founding fathers were radical revolutionaries, you may label them extremists today.

Now you bring in the defense rationality. Of course the oppressed will rebel...


Having extreme views on a single issue or an entire political ideology does not make one immediately a whacko, (though it is typically an indication save for in extraordinary circumstances). Some/many <> all.

No, some/many <> all. But you have just stated how a few are the problem.

And, how silly that is.

[Gan]

Whacko and extremism are the same thing.

Not really.

I consider you really whacko. But I dont consider you an extremist, at least not anymore.

[radamanthys]

Now you bring in the defense rationality. Of course the oppressed will rebel...

Should we really?



No, some/many <> all. But you have just stated how a few are the problem.

And, how silly that is.

And how is it silly?

I said a few what were what problem?

Basically... what's your point? What are you getting at?

Could you explain a little more? I feel like I'm debating myself; like I'm playing tennis against a wall. The balls are coming back, but I'm hitting them in the first place.

[AestheticLife]

are they whacko?


Being that they're dead, they were "whacko". The clarity of present day does not change how fucking ridiculous they were for THEIR time.

[radamanthys]

Being that they're dead, they were "whacko". The clarity of present day does not change how fucking ridiculous they were for THEIR time.

I don't think they were whacko. From everything I've read (the consitution to the federalist papers, etc.), they had their heads screwed on straight. And look at the end result.

Where they were revolutionaries and extremists, I don't think it was out of a skewed world outlook.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

SUP DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE TO HATE SO I PUT SOME HATERADE IN YOUR HATE SO YOU CAN BE A HATER WHILE YOU HATE.

[AestheticLife]

I don't think they were whacko. From everything I've read (the consitution to the federalist papers, etc.), they had their heads screwed on straight. And look at the end result.

Where they were revolutionaries and extremists, I don't think it was out of a skewed world outlook.

YOU don't think it was "out of a skewed world outlook". Their peers, however, obviously did for a great deal of time.

If it becomes commonplace in 2094 to keep genetically-mutated rabbits as slaves for your various platinum mining industrial ventures, does that make any douchebag running around trying to do that exact thing in the present day any less fucked up?

[Warriorbird]

Clyder's personality, posting style, and general volume of posting has greatly developed since that poll about his identity.

ClydeR is multi-accounted.

[Back]

Basically... what's your point? What are you getting at?

I was agreeing with you and commenting on the situation. For me, the distinction between whacko and extremist is very blurry. I would not call a revolutionary an extremist but there are extremist revolutionaries.

In your example of the American Revolution I would call the english the whacko extremists by basically saying “we rule you without your say, get your money and goods, and if you don’t like that we’ll kill you.”

[Parkbandit]

Thats all you took away from the observation? A knee-jerk NO U?



I read the opinion you posted.
I agreed that the opinion you posted sounded very much like the stupidity you spew here on a daily basis.
You have a retarded political view, much like the author who wrote the article you posted.

Which part did you not understand again?

[Back]

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/no-u-turn.png!

[radamanthys]

Can't you just imagine one of the pundits saying this?

Sect. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.

Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.

What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society.

He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact.

Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? for the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end, but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act, and advise, as the necessity of the common-wealth, and the public good should, upon examination, and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing.

To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with.

To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of, to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing.

What power they ought to have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted.