Talk Shows and Cop Killers
Richard Poplawski, the Pittsburgh Cop killer had been worried for weeks. He had abandoned his own attempts at talk show fame (an Internet talk show) because nobody called in. But still the fears he heard on Right Wing talk radio must have haunted him.
Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns. One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."
As Charles Blow pointed out last week the calls from the Right for "revolution" are only increasing.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, imagining herself as some sort of Delacroixian Liberty from the Land of the Lakes, urged her fellow Minnesotans to be "armed and dangerous," ready to bust caps over cap-and-trade, I presume.And between his tears, Glenn Beck, the self-professed "rodeo clown," keeps warning of an impending insurrection by saying that he believes that we are heading for "depression" and "revolution" and then gaming out that revolution on his show last month. "Think the unthinkable" he said. Indeed.
As Blow points out, this is more than just talk, "according to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year."
One doesn't have to be a historian of Weimar Germany at the start of the Great Depression to realize that the Fascist solution being preached by Bachmann, Beck and Limbaugh can quickly move from the realm of "entertainment" to the morgue. I don't have any solution for this menace on the public airwaves, but I do know that there are lots of fairly unstable potential brownshirts abroad in the land, with easy access to guns and plenty of speed (just a surmise on my part) to heighten their paranoia. As the three Pittsburgh officers found out, that is an ugly combination.
You are just giving Bachmann what she wants. When she was first elected in the district neighboring mine I wondered how long it was going to take the national media to pick up on one of her sound bites because the results were entirely predictable. She has an act just as surely as Jesse, The Body, Ventura -- only he was more serious about governing. No one knew her name until she was caught being outrageous and the more outrageous she is the more publicity she gets. She'll get a talk show. She'll get rich. Thanks.
April 5, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's important to call this stuff out. Ignore it and it won't go away.
April 6, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's important to call this stuff out. Ignore it and it won't go away.
April 6, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen this as incitement for some time, but a firearm isn't the only tool in their toolbox. It only takes a match and some warm dry wind in California.
O'Reilly, Rushbo, Savage (Wiener),Hannity, Coulter and Beck have been on a roll this past year and more. Pelosi and the homo's in San Francisco need to be run into the ocean (homo's are coming), illegal immigrants should be hanged from their fruit picking trees (brown people are coming), and in general, the socialist, communist, Marxist liberals are coming. To take SOMETHING from you unless YOU RISE UP AND ACT.
I see it as incitement. But I suppose if you start crying on the teevee you can just shove it over into the 'patriotism' column. Or is it the fifth column?
Minnesota has the same problem we have in AK, and that's a pretty dipshit with some political power.
April 5, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bachmann is no Palin in terms of being pretty. This is probably the one and only time I will defend your governor.
Other than that I think they share the same brain.
April 5, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but the bottom line here is that neither would have gotten anywhere if they had weighed 300 pounds. If you find one of those people that are successful, they're much more apt to be smart or otherwise have something going for them.
April 5, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well in terms of beauty being more than skin deep...they are on my list of the ugliest women in America, in a class with Coulter and Malkin.
April 5, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
By strangling the honest workers and rewarding the rich parasites, Obama is pushing tens of millions into the arms of Limbaugh & Co.
April 5, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break! If you had an ounce of intelligence, you'd know that what we're seeing today is the result of actions taken during Bu$h and the repuglicans years - it doesn't happen overnight. If you feel the need to blame anyone, look for the one's who call themselves repuglicans.
April 5, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejuice, I despise the Republicans from the bottom of my soul. But I blame the Democrats equally, for bowing to the Republicans during the past eight years, and now for the bailouts and insane militarism.
April 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why stop at Democrats and Republicans? Progressives are pretty good at exploiting populist agitprop, too. Check out the flipside of Poplawski's motivations,
Fits in pretty well in some of our very own threads right here, I would say.
April 7, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Do 'ordinary' people actually think that Rush "I am leaving New York because they tax the rich people like me too much' Limbaugh really gives a rats ass about them? He only cares about how much can be made off of them. I don't listen to Rush or engage in dialogue with many of his listeners but do they really believe that Rush wants the government to put policies in place to help them? Or is this just another example of conservatives lying to people and trying to get them to believe that it is actually in their best interests to be opposed to their best interests?
April 5, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Or is this just another example of conservatives lying to people and trying to get them to believe that it is actually in their best interests to be opposed to their best interests?"
Well, but so do the other ones. They just do it in a more genteel fashion.
April 5, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a Dem had made over the top and inflammatory statements that had led to people being killed a firing squad would have already been assembled by the wingnuts. If it turns out to be true, that the shooter did what he did because of statements from people like Bachmann, I think the victims families should be able to sue them for damages.
The recent rash of people going on armed rampages (Alabama, New York and now Pennsylvania) has me very concerned...people are being killed because of politicians, and their operatives in the MSM, trying to push a divisive partisan agenda. People need to be held accountable for what they say on the public airwaves.
April 5, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be too Democratic and the repuglicans in Congress would put a stop to and cite it violates a persons rights.
April 5, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well a person doesn't have the right to shout 'FIRE!!!' in a theater...so I don't see any difference here.
But on point I agree that is the tact the would probably try to take. I still say the victims families should explore filing suit against, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, or any other conservative pundit/politician that calls for any armed uprising which leads to people being killed.
April 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They ought to go after the media networks. These people have nothing worthwhile to say. Their only purpose is to be outrageous, attract outrage, and escalate their outrageousness. It's bread and circuses. It's throwing Christians to the lions. They don't care what the outcome is.
April 5, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that's not a bad idea. They got rid of that guy--who is it? Howard Stern?
April 5, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there is a slight difference. I guess for now speech concerning making love/having sex is a no-no but speech advocating armed violence is ok.
April 5, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They could take a cue from Morris Dees and The Southern Poverty Law Center who established the precedent of making racist groups liable for violent acts committed by their members.
April 5, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I don't know squat about the law I would bet it would be a hard case to make stick. Even if it could be won it would drag on forever and the SOBs would have a field day ranting about the injustice of the socialist libruls. Imagine the comments that would enenate from our fair and ballanced liberal media as the thing dragged through the courts year after year. When all is said and done it would be a bonanza for Rush and the wingnuts. This is the same reason that celebs never sue tabloids. It's a lose/lose situation.
I'm tempted to say that the remedy is to shame them but they know no shame. At long last have they do sense of decency left? Nope, none what so ever.
April 6, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If" a Dem had made such a remark?
How do you characterize Blow's comment about Rick Wagoner being flogged in the streets? Or suggesting a guillotine would be more egalitarian?
April 5, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You almost have a point here, Bill. There is a huge difference, however, in the tone, the audience and the scale of the two statements. Blow's statement was obviously humorous and was obviously not an incitement to violence nor made to further a political agenda. Bachmann's statements clearly are in furthance of a fairly extreme political agenda.
Once again, I urge you to examine the evidence. Has Wagoner been flogged? Has anyone been guillotined? No to both. Has anyone taken up arms against the police? Vide Pittsburgh.
April 5, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the action in Pittsburgh would have happened whether or not Bachmann made her comment. They were not related. Her comment did not cause that shooting.
Same way that I would never blame Rich for the French workers that kidnapped their boss. I bet if a Republican had made Rich's or Blow's comments people here would be linking them to the CEO being held hostage.
But both would be wrong.
April 5, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the action in Pittsburgh would have happened whether or not Bachmann made her comment. They were not related. Her comment did not cause that shooting.
Assertion is not the same thing as fact. If you have some evidence to support these statements, present it. Otherwise we will have to conclude that you are arguing from faith. This is standard practice for conservatives, but does not constitute valid argument.
April 6, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no evidence that shows that her statements are linked to the shootings.
April 6, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no evidence that shows that her statements are linked to the shootings.
See? You can deal with facts and evidence when you put your mind to it.
You are correct. I have no evidence that there is a link, nor did I claim any.
My argument all along, as you might have seen had you been paying attention, was not that she was a direct or indirect cause of any of these shootings. My argument was with YOUR assertion that it was ridiculous (I believe you used the word "nuts") or disingenuous to speculate about a link. As we have demonstrated repeatedly, the possibility of linkage between the Honorable Ms. Bachmann's rabble-rousing and, for example, defendant Poplawski is actually fairly plausible, not outrageous in the least.
April 7, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have just as much basis in your theory as I do in my theory that Barney Frank was nice to Fannie Mae because his boyfriend worked there.
I have no idea if I'm right but I'd like to think I'm right because I can't stand Barney Frank.
But I don't make it the main topic of multiple blogs on here. I actually don't write about it (but just keep it to myself) because it's just a theory with out any basis in fact. It's circumstantial and that hasn't ever convicted a Congresswoman before.
God forbid there's another shooting, maybe people on TPM should also share the blame because they're magnifying Ms. Bachmann's comment. If it wasn't for TPM and HuffPo, this comment wouldn't have been getting nearly as much airtime.
April 7, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with your theory. And you admit that it comes straight out of your hatred for Barney Frank, so, enjoy...
April 7, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, your last paragraph is patently absurd. Next you'll blame Elliot Ness for Al Capone.
April 7, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the one casually throwing blaming around, you guys are
April 8, 2009 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. I took you for someone who was able to understand an argument. My mistake.
April 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
no problem - apology accepted - and if you didn't like my adjectives like ridiculous, nuts or disingenous....how about far fetched? dishonest?
April 9, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about learn how to spell?
April 9, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you got the point despite my spelling error. Creating additional hype around Ms Bachmann's comments doesn't help anyone
April 9, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What doesn't help anyone is attempting to talk sense to someone who refuses to think, wouldn't you agree?
April 9, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not the one who's taking her comments out of context
April 10, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot, "like YOU GUYS." You are dismissed, Bill.
April 10, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever
April 10, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I fond all violent rhetoric unhelpful/counterproductive. But what should be done is to take what is said in context. Context is key. When Blow uses the guillotine metaphor I am sure it is in the context of populist outrage over how the economic crisis is being handled and not to go over to Wagoner's house, drag him out of it and do him harm. On the other hand these conservative commentators and politicians are ginning up fear in a segment of the population that people will be coming to take their guns and they need to fight back and resist. So keep on trying to misrepresent what is being said Bill and we'll keep putting it in context.
Meanwhile reckless politicians and pundits are directing messages to a highly armed and in some cases paranoid segment of the population encouraging them to use their weapons and act on their paranoid delusions.
April 5, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So these potential killers only watch Fox News but they don't read the NYTimes?
When you look at the context of her "armed and dangerous" comment, there's nothing to suggest that she's directing people to go buy guns and use them. But if you already hate her ideology then you will take that comment out of context too.
Next thing you know people on here will be blaming her for the next 9/11.
April 5, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Bill, generally people who are think that the country will survive or perish based on our right to bear arms are conservative and watch Fox News...because the opinions (lies) given there validate their fears that every liberal want to take all their guns away.
And to try to deny that conservative pundits and politicians are trying to play to that fear is willfully ignoring the obvious.
And just for clarification...I know many gun owners and in fact one is a very good friend who is a certified NRA instructor. I am not opposed to gun ownership, most gun owners are very responsible people, but that doesn't change the fact that a small minority of gun owners hold extremist views and feel that violence is justified to ensure that, in their view only, that tyranny doesn't prevail by the 'disarming the people'. All it takes is 1% of these hardcore, or even 1/10th of 1%, zealots to come unhinged to have tragedies keep on occurring and occurring.
April 5, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what she said was taken out of context. I am not misrepresenting what she said. She wanted people to become "armed and dangerous" by attending her forum on the energy tax so that they could discuss the topic intelligently.
I assume you listened to the entire piece, and not just read about it on here, right?
I'm not going to debate the entire content of FoxNews. That can be a separate blog. The point here is that people are making a link between Bachmann's comments and the Pittsburgh incident. That is absurd.
It's just as absurd as trying to blame Rich or Blow if somebody decided to murder Rick Wagoner tomorrow. That would also be a stretch.
April 5, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The point here is that people are making a link between Bachmann's comments and the Pittsburgh incident. That is absurd."
No, it's not absurd, you're just thinking about it on the wrong level (concrete vs. abstract connections). And the fact remains that it IS possible that the Pitts. shooter did hear Bachmann et al and took it the wrong way leading the shooter to have a more fearful and antagonistic frame of mind when his mother called the cops for the Nth time. Why did he pull out the guns THIS time? It's pretty slim but you cannot prove it's not there.
April 6, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of your best friends are gun owners. (sorry I couldn't resist) My dad was an avid hunter and a life long Democrat, NRA member and the kindest and sanest man I've ever known.
At the risk of sounding unfairly partisen, can anyone think of a conservative leader who was assasinated in recent memory (not just in America but around the world)? I've tried and I can't come up with one. Reagan got shot by a bonified nut (I think the guy could have as easily gone after Johnny Carson) and Gearge Wallace was paralised but lived.
My point is that there really is a divide between these two sides of human nature that is more basic than ideology can account for. The ideology seems to come out of the emotional predelections and for that reason perhaps it is not so unfair to point out this obvious cultural divission. Those on the right are proud to point out what whimppy pacifists liberals are. And equally proud of how much more the right represent the raging animal within. So come on conservatives. Own it. In for a penny...
April 6, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
" Poplawski had been upset about losing his job. "
Is that a mere distraction or an important piece of the puzzle?
If there is a vast right wing conspiracy, tacit or otherwise here, what are its true goals?
To rabble rouse enough to generate a public backlash so as to have created a self-fulfilling kind of prophecy when Congress and Obama pass stricter gun controls than they would have without the shootings?
To merely create a bit more chaos in economic bad times to generate yet more gun sales as more people succumb to fear of their neighbors?
A couple of quotes taken out of context can suggest a pretty bad picture, but then like the illusion of the young girl and the old woman neither version of the factual picture is true to reality.
I'm not arguing to ignore the clowns, only to keep their antics in a proper perspective.
April 5, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'proper perspective' is that after many years of xenophobia about Muslims and illegal immigrants, ICE raids, frisking Grannies at airports, racial and ethnic profiling, wars, invasions and the GWOT, one of the most significant and ignored threats to our security and the lives of our cops may be delusional gun loving right wing white males, like Tim McVeigh or Poplawski.
If they desire to use their guns to kill innocent people I say they shouldn't have guns.
April 5, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot disagree about your closing comment, but the Pitts. guy... does he really fit that profile you offer in the first para?
April 6, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
eds,
rational people can keep the comments in perspective, but the right wing is full of irrational people.
If I remember right, when Timothy McVeigh blew up that federal building there was a lot of talk about his being a right wing radio aficionado, especially Rush Limbaugh who went on to deny he had any influence on McVeigh. How much of this was correct, I don't know.
April 5, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but now read my comment as if you knew that I already knew that when I wrote my comment.
I'm addressing the TPM crowd.
The responsibility for rabble rousing effects is pretty thin unless there is a more direct connection (like a personal contact between the demagogue and the person who "pulls the trigger"). The standard free speech limit of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater strikes me as relevant.
I can see people taking Bachmann the wrong way, even apparently rational TPM readers seem to be able to grossly misconstrue things, whether intended humorously or seriously. But when free speech in public becomes the equivalent of giving a child-like psychopath a loaded gun...
April 6, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the Tennessee killer who went into a Unitarian-Universalist Church last summer? Police found books by a couple of right wing talk show hosts in his truck and house. His angst was the church's welcoming attitude to the LGBT community.
Those darn LIBRUL UUs, who mostly don't like guns and support restrictive legislation, disarmed the guy after a very short shooting spree. No one had a gun, they just got together and jumped him.
Meanwhile back in Colorado, we have just gone through the Ward Churchill trial and all the arguments on free speech. I thought there was some kind of law that could be used for this sort of thing, Seems to me the comment had to be fairly concrete, as in "Go shoot some cops so they can't take your guns away."
People who advocate violence know what they can get away with. They also have to be careful to stimulate the person rather than scare them. Just like teachers, who want students to learn the lesson themselves, the speaker talks about several different concepts and lets the listener connect them. Beck is really pushing the strategy.
Maybe we should all build revolution bunkers, stock them with food and water, move in when the fighting begins. When the wingnuts come out shooting, they will kill mostly other wingnuts- because they have guns and it will be shoot before you get shot.
I really am disturbed by what the GOP fear mongering has turned us all into. Most of us are not violent enough to retaliate in kind. Like the Tennessee UUs, we will have to think smarter, in groups.
April 5, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right Ginny, this is not an isolated case, in fact it's at least the 2nd multiple killing in the last 9 months by an unstable person pushed over the edge by right-wing rhetoric. Jim Adkisson in Knoxville TN late last summer went into a Unitarian Church to kill liberals and Democrats and succeeded in killing two and wounding seven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting
His suicide note said that he wanted to kill Obama and "...the 100 people cited in (Fox News commenter Bernard) Goldberg's book..." but he knew he couldn't get to them so any liberal would do.
Read his suicide note (he failed at the suicide and was captured) at the Knoxville News. It reads like the topics discussed on a typical Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity show:
http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf
April 5, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
TOE, there have been 7 mass shootings in less than a month, although I don't think they can all be blamed directly on garbage radio.
AP helpfully put the list together today:
But the Republican devotion to unfettered free markets and disdain of social safety nets, their demonization of criminals and allegiance to law 'n order through policies such as the stringent "Three Strikes" laws and their contempt of the 'other', like gays, immigrants and those from different cultures, to name just a few Republican beliefs, have certainly contributed to the social and economic climate we find ourselves in today. And right wing radio has not been shy about spouting off this drivel.
***According to the police, the motive was because his wife was leaving him for another man. (Honey, I shot the 5 kids so you would stay??)
April 5, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The failure of hope, instead of the audacity of hope?
Looks like standard fare for times of economic or social collapse, to me.
April 6, 2009 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked it better in 1929 when the bankers were the ones offing themselves.
April 6, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were in the headlines, but I bet public frustration was there/then too.
April 6, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The economic turmoil in the post-WWI period is what led to the rise of the Nazis and the Fascists. It could be 'deja vu all over again" unless the left is very vigilant.
April 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Charles W. Blow insult the French?
He's got it all wrong, Bachmann is some sort of Deludacrockian Lividity in the Band of The Half-Baked.April 5, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOL. Howling out loud. I think Blow was just trying to piss off the right with the French references. He didn't have to bother because apparently they're not getting it.
April 5, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a disturbing trend and it's being fueled by Murdoch's Fox News. Here are a couple of recent items that bring incitement to mind:
-One month into Obama's administration Glen Beck has a former CIA official and a retired Army Sgt. on a segment called "War Room" to discuss an armed rebellion where "bubba militias" rise up against our government.
-A short while ago Sean Hannity had a poll on his website "What Kind of Revolution" where the choices to vote on were Military Coup, Armed Rebellion, or War for Secession.
-Who can forget the Liz Trotta comment on Fox News where she openly hoped for Obama's assasination.
Fox News steps over the line and that Rupert Murdoch and his minions are responsible for whatever violence their rhetoric sparks.
April 5, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bademus,
people on FOX and right wing radio are great at pushing others to war and violence as are many of their fans, but most of these people are not up to committing violence themselves, nor have they ever been first in line at a military recruiting office (even in peacetime).
If I believed the islamofascists or some other enemy was threatening my family or the stability of the United States I'd go to the nearest enlistment office and sign up, but then that's me, I'm not a blowhard coward.
Corporal Limbaugh, Sgt. Hannity, PFC Glenn Beck,....yeah, right.
April 5, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fueled by Fox? Does Blow work for Fox? Last time I checked he was still at the NYTimes. What do you think of his writing about "flogging Rick Wagoner" and use of the guillotine?
April 5, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Taplin,
Is this the same Blow who wants Rick Wagoner flogged in the streets? Same guy who suggested use of the guillotine would be a tad more egalitarian?
April 5, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB -
You have misinterpreted what Blow wrote.
I’m not saying that the Despots of Detroit deserve a break (Wagoner should be flogged in the streets for the Hummer alone), but the use of the guillotine could be a tad more egalitarian.
Blow is using the guillotine as a metaphor for Wagoner's firing and he is wondering why the head slicer was only used in Detroit and not on Wall Street, too.
Taxpayer money has been passed out like candy. Most of it went to Wall Street. Now we feel like suckers. So, why aren’t heads rolling in the banking sector?
Get it? He is not advocating for Wagoner's head to come off via the guillotine, unless it is also used on Wall Street miscreants.
Both Blow and Rich are simply using the language of Revolution, as that seems to be the one used so often today, although it is dressed up with some French culture thrown in just to piss you off. Who knew it would throw you off, instead?
Nothing to be self-righteous about here.
April 5, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we're spelling everything out, I should have mentioned that Wagoner was the chairman of GM (aka Gambled & Missed), not the head of Government.
There is a difference.
April 5, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised you made a distinction between the head of GM and the head of the Government. All life is sacred. Nobody should threaten to kill anyone. Threatening to kill the president is no worse than threatening to kill a neighbor.
But the point is that Bachmann did not suggest we kill anyone. But people are looking for any excuse to mis-interpret what she says.
If Wagoner actually was murdered tomorrow and someone on here blamed Rich or the NYTimes, I would defend Rich. I think both Bachmann and the NYTimes' uses of metaphors is fine and isn't a cause of anyone doing something nuts
April 5, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB: But the point is that Bachmann did not suggest we kill anyone. But people are looking for any excuse to mis-interpret what she says.
Good grief, I call a foul. In your post that I replied to, you were questioning Blow's language from a post that he had written about Rick Wagoner. Neither post ever mentioned Bachman. And now you want to make her the point?
Fail.
April 6, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bachmann was already brought up in the original post. She has been a hot topic on this board all weekend. If you read the original post by Jon you will see that she was already part of the point of the blog
April 6, 2009 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not even close, MCB.
Poplawski, Blow and Beck are named in Taplin's original post, along with Bachman. Limbaugh appears as a supporting actor. You brought up Blow and brought in Wagoner, not Bachman.
I wasn't here much this weekend, but that shouldn't matter anyway.
April 6, 2009 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is saying that Wagoner should be flogged in the streets. And I have no problem with what he said. I think the use of metaphors is effective and won't cause readers to run out and take him literally (despite the recent kidnapping of the French CEO by workers)
It didn't throw me off. I was trying to show that both the left and right are using metaphors which I don't view as harmful.
I don't think people should get upset about Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" line. And they shouldn't get upset about Rich's guillotine comment or Blow's suggested "flogging".
April 5, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, your point is correct. There is an apparent bias here when people say it's okay for the left to use violent metaphors but then castigate the right for using violent metaphors.
But surely you understand the significant differences between the two usages and why the right wing "armed rebellion" talk is close to criminal while the talk about Wagoner is not. Right?
And if you don't, don't just say so, say why so.
April 6, 2009 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are conflating here. There is a tremendous fundamental difference between a journalist using an analogy to an execution device never existent in America and only existent in the past, and an elected Federal Official using three back to back analogies referencing contemporary arguments often used by advocates of armed insurrection against the state. First Bachmann said Washington D.C. is behind enemy lines. Then she asserted that Minnesotans should be armed and dangerous when opposing global warming initiatives proposed by the Nation's Commander in Chief. She finished off her rebellion triple play, segueing directly to paraphrasing one short quote in a private correspondence of Thomas Jefferson's written to a son in law of John Adams, and revolutionary war hero, Colonel William Stephens Smith, while Jefferson was the American Ambassador to France on June 16, 1786, implying that armed rebellion against the state was both inevitable and justifiable.
These two things are not even in the same galaxy, and should cast doubt upon Bachmann's competence, as well as her legitimate right to serve as a House member:
Oh, and BTW, I just listened to the interview. If anyone wants to hear Bachmann's use of rhetorical support for armed insurrection against The Unite States; here's a direct link to just the relevant part of the interview.April 6, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was interesting to listen for her lies.
Some of what she says is partisan and extreme but there are occasional lies. One example: She says Obama is going to tax all energy sources, in the context of cap and trade. But he's not taxing solar or hyrdo or nuclear in this context. So that was a lie. She makes many little slips like this, I don't know if it's on purpose (wilfully knowing she's crossing line) or by accident (careless recklessness).
The point is that the partisan extremism is acceptable as "playing politics" but the lying is not. It's a common tactic.
April 6, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wagoner should be flogged in the streets for the Hummer alone"
Fine revolutionary language, I agree, and not at all comparable with Bachmann's.
Did you bother to actually find out exactly what Bachmann said? Or did you just join this fest for the hell of it?
April 5, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to the entire radio interview where she made the "armed and dangerous" comment. I think few people listened to the entire thing and took those three words completely out of context. She was talking about people attending a forum on the energy tax and getting enough information so they'd be "armed and dangerous" on the issue and be able to intelligently discuss the topic
April 5, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: Did you bother to actually find out exactly what Bachmann said?
Obviously much more than your ability to follow this thread.
Lalo: Or did you just join this fest for the hell of it?
E tu?
April 6, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
See above, tiger.
April 6, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also forgot to mention Frank Rich's article in the NYTimes which is accompanied by a cartoon of an "Executive Guillotine".
I guess that's OK with everyone here? That isn't the same I guess because it's the NYTimes
April 5, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only trouble is guillotines are cumbersome, they are difficult to transport and impossible to conceal, plus most models have to be re-loaded after a single 'shot'!
I fully support the right of you MiddleClassBill, or any other smartass like you, to keep and bear a guillotine as long as it is used within the law.
April 6, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taplin, are you nuts?
Yes, Bachman is insane.
But to tie her ravings to people's legitimate purchases of firearms is the height of absurdity.
If you're going to post here, at least at like an adult.
April 5, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't think Bachman is insane.
But I do think she's convenient because what she gives to Taplin is priceless.
As for posting like an adult - wishful thinking and not part of the strategy.
April 5, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what's this "cop killers" nonsense all about?
April 5, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor-Here is the cop killers favorite web site.
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/obdedvd.html
I rest my case. The line between the nut jobs and the plain old conspiracy theories is a fine one.
April 7, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a suggestion for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris should hole up in some barricaded house, fire a few rounds into the air and announce over the Internet that the revolution has started.
April 6, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Norris would also have a few women (his 'wives'?) and dozens of kids with him if he was true to wingnut form.
April 6, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
zed,
heh heh heh, good one. :-)
April 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, they're all "law abiding gun owners" until they shoot their first wife, child or cop.
Excuse me, but how many of the gun owners who've gone on rampages or suicide/murder episodes were "criminal gun owners"? I bet none of them had convictions.
There's nothing like guns for turning a moment's jealousy, disppointment or depression into murder, suicide and tragedy. And all the "law abiding gun owners" can't do a damn thing about it, except of course, making sure the guns needed for the murder, suicide or tragedy are close at hand, loaded and available.
And what good is a gun for "self defense" if it isn't loaded and available?
April 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink