Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Up is down, black is white…

Tommy is Rae Dawn…:

Is America becoming less politically stable? A glance at some foreign newspapers would certainly give that impression. This is an important economic question. The global primacy of Treasury bonds and the dollar stems mostly from the nation’s massive economic might. But confidence in U.S. political stability also plays a role. The shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, though tragic, shouldn’t alter those perceptions — unless freedom of speech suffers.

[…]

[…] political violence has been rare in the United States in recent years. That’s despite the disputed 2000 presidential election, the unpopular Iraq war and the election of the first black president. Indeed, the World Bank ranks America above the UK when it comes to “political stability and absence of violence.” And the U.S. rank has actually been on the rise in recent years.

[…]

That ranking partly reflects the fact that even heated talk doesn’t cause instability. But if the freedom to indulge in such rhetoric and to protest is curtailed, it can be a different story — one reason, perhaps, why China receives low marks from the World Bank. So it’s disturbing that some in Congress are already working on new laws to limit political speech, in addition to ongoing attacks on talk radio. Those efforts, if they move toward limiting legitimate expression, should worry global investors far more than a one-off lunatic act, however shocking its results.

Wait, so the argument here is that an impassioned political culture creates a kind of outlet for people, and in fact lessens violent tendencies? And that a government willing to use tragedies to rush to criminalize political speech — and let’s fact it, it’s conservative speech we’re talking about, because conservatism is inherently evil and deranged (there’ve been studies!) — is hoping to create the conditions wherein the curtailing of free expression might actually lead (based on anecdotal evidence) to an increase in political violence…?

RACIST!

30 Replies to “Up is down, black is white…”

  1. Ernst Schreiber says:

    If conservatives are outlawed, only outlaws will be conservative.

  2. Bob Reed says:

    So if the Democrats were to succeed in curtailing political speech, you know, in the interest of yet again saving us from ourselves, never let a crisis go to waste and all, we may become more like China?

    Tom Friedman surely approves…

    And the unintended consequence of it possibly causing an increase in violence, as the only possible means of expression when all other ways are squelched? Just another unintended consequence unable to be foreseen by the good men of unimpeachable effect.

    I wonder if threats of tarring and feathering will be included in the ban; or offers to bring one’s own tree to one’s lynching…

  3. Jeff G. says:

    If conservatives are outlawed, only outlaws will be conservative.

    We’re already there. We just haven’t admitted it yet.

  4. Jeff G. says:

    Tom Friedman surely approves…

    And Oliver Stone, and Sean Penn, and, well, you get the idea.

  5. Ernst Schreiber says:

    We’re already there. We just haven’t admitted it yet.

    Democrats had better hope not.

  6. happyfeet says:

    it seems odd we haven’t heard from Chucky Schumer he should be like a pig in mud

  7. SporkLift Driver says:

    — whose bizarre anti-government rants centered on the use of grammar as mind control —

    Better watch it Jeff, next they’ll be blaming you for this.

  8. Jeff G. says:

    Better watch it Jeff, next they’ll be blaming you for this.

    Well, he wasn’t crazy about everything… ;-)

  9. happyfeet says:

    here is a … frank discussion from the Monitor what is Christer and Sciencey

    Still, the onus is on the Republicans to keep the narrative of “tea party as extremists” from settling in the mainstream public consciousness as fact, just as they incorporate new members backed by the tea party movement into their congressional caucuses. It’s a scenario reminiscent of the 1995 bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City at the hands of domestic terrorists, which allowed Democrats to paint a picture of a big-tent GOP that includes extremists.

    The magnitude of the Oklahoma City attack, in which 168 people died, was far greater than the one in Tucson. For President Bill Clinton, the bombing represented a turning point in his presidency, as he captured and gave voice to the national sense of mourning and anger.

    For Obama, Tucson may not be a turning point, but it’s an opportunity to take the high road while other Democrats suggest that some Republicans have engaged in over-the-top rhetoric that can create an atmosphere of violence.

    “It is of course commonplace for presidents to use surrogates to take the low road, especially when they don’t want to soil their skirts with that level of discourse,” says Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas, Austin.

  10. Jeff G. says:

    happy —

    You’re good at Google-fu. Can you find the Dick Morris memo to Clinton re: Oklahoma City bombing?

  11. happyfeet says:

    I will try

  12. geoffb says:

    Even more than that, Oklahoma City created a huge political opportunity, which Clinton quickly seized. On April 27, a little more than a week after the bombing, Dick Morris, then a little-known but influential Clinton adviser, presented the President a fantastically naked political memo that, as you can find in his book Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds, said: “Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans.” Morris suggested using “extremism as issue against Republicans,” not by “direct accusations,” but via a “ricochet theory.”

    Clinton should “stimulate national concern over extremism and terror,” Morris wrote, and then “implement intrusive policy against extremist groups.” Morris predicted that radical right-wingers would write their local Republican congressmen, and that in turn “this will provoke criticism by right-wing Republicans which will link right-wing of the party to extremist groups.”

    “Net effect,” Morris concluded: “Self-inflicted linkage between party and extremists.”

  13. geoffb says:

    Also here.

  14. Jeff G. says:

    Thanks, geoffb.

    People should really arm themselves with this example. I’m eager to hear Morris on all this, now that he’s moved to the right.

  15. happyfeet says:

    that was the best discussion I found too – the reason excerpt of the examiner

  16. Squid says:

    And Clinton found his voice. At a Michigan State commencement address shortly afterward, he told graduates, “There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.”

    Wow. I’d forgotten the days when Dems would pretend they didn’t hate their country. Good times.

  17. Squid says:

    People should really arm themselves…

    There you go with that inflammatory rhetoric again. HAVE YOU NO SHAME, SIR?

  18. Jeff G. says:

    I can’t wait to hear Levin today.

  19. Who was it that said he wanted to have sex with one woman of each ethnicity… or Rea Dawn Chong once?

    Because I wish to denouce him before I’m put in the re-education camps.

  20. or even denounce him. but maybe later.

  21. sdferr says:

    Why is Secretary of State Clinton a moron? I mean, does she have to be?

  22. Abe Froman says:

    Does anyone know if someone has compiled any sort of violent gun crime data from a political standpoint? Meaning, part of what fuels all of this nonsense is the left’s association between conservatives and guns (Palin included), yet it seems rather obvious that while the left is too emotion-based and stupid to differentiate between lawful responsible ownership and the inverse of that, Democrats or people in their environs commit the overwhelming majority of violent acts. Even a list of violent crime by congressional district would throw a wrench in their narrative.

    It strikes me that legal gun ownership/advocacy juxtaposed with with incendiary political rhetoric pales in comparison to the theoretical danger of similar rhetoric directed towards people with a demonstrated penchant for violence. I don’t know the best way to package this off hand, but I’m rather tired of the circle jerk that is this violent TEA Partier claptrap.

  23. sdferr says:

    Oh, and Tom DeLay gets three years in prison for the crime of being a Republican.

  24. geoffb says:

    That is a felony in Austin IIRC.

  25. happyfeet says:

    that’s sick – our piece of shit cocksucker governor with the hair needs to pardon Mr. Delay

  26. geoffb says:

    Also at Reason re: Clinton & Oklahoma City.

  27. Bob Reed says:

    Well, I’m not too sure myself, but I believe that prior death threats are a better indicator of a whacko being a danger to others, threats ignored by the local constabulary, than run of the mill political discourse regardless of how heated…

    ( http://tiny.cc/zdbrh )

    Seems to put Sherrif Dupnik’s haste to blame this on Palin into the “CYA” category moreso than the usual knee-jerk lefty political blather one.

  28. sdferr says:

    Watch this. Go ahead. I dare you.

  29. newrouter says:

    Instead, I’ll make a suggestion.

    If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there’s a very simple way to do that: give up.

    Get out of the way. Stop advocating the violation of individual rights every day in every way. Stop trying to get legislation passed that steals private property for the purpose of funding your favorite social engineering goals. Stop extolling the alleged virtue of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways that further Progressive goals. End your advocacy of coercion through government.

    Your cause is not noble, your methods are not virtuous, your philosophy is not just. Your ideas are more than mistaken; they’re immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional. Change your philosophy and change your behavior and ‘the Right’ will have no longer have an incentive to fight back against your support for squishy tyranny.

    Until then, you can expect the rhetoric to continue. A vocal segment of the American people will simply no longer sit back passively and watch their freedom get corroded away, one bad edict at a time.

    Until then, the intellectual revolution to restore it will continue undiminished.

    link

  30. […] Up &#1110&#1109 down, black &#1110&#1109 white… […]

Comments are closed.