|
August 14, 2009
Bewitching symbolic resemblances just burn me up!
One of my most frequent complaints involves the tendency ((of activists, usually) to blame people who did not do something for the actions -- often criminal in nature -- of people who did. The blame game usually takes the form of a communitarian political argument. A favorite target of left wing political activists is Rush Limbaugh, and while I've complained about that before (and defended him even though I'm no Rush fan), if a story I saw today is any indication, law enforcement officials at the highest levels are now thinking like left wing activists. I think that's a dangerous development, because they have real power. Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.Wait a second. How does anything Rush Limbaugh says "legitimize" anything or anyone, much less "people are on the edge"? If you listen to him (which I do occcasionally), you can either agree or disagree with what he says, but his words don't legitimize a damned thing. In the case of the logo, I listened to a recording of what Limbaugh said, and he was talking about this logo: And his argument is that it generally resembles this:
He'd have a better case suggesting that the NSA logo -- -- resembles this Nazi logo: Or that the Obamacare logo is shaped too much like the United States Marine Corps logo: But it's just my opinion that Limbaugh is wrong with his comparison. Others may disagree and see creeping Nazi symbology surreptitiously being insinuated into national health care. My question is, how on earth does this "legitimize people who are on the edge to go do something or say something"? Can anyone tell me what I am missing? If we assume there are nutjobs out there listening to Rush Limbaugh, how can he be responsible for how they might feel? Such people are by their nature unpredictable and irrational. Anything might in theory make them feel legitimized -- including even the voicing of a disagreement with someone they didn't like. For example, if some deluded maniac believes that all witches should be burned at the stake, and Rush Limbaugh calls Hillary Clinton a witch, is it Limbaugh's fault if the nutjob sees it as his duty to go find Hillary and attempt to lead her to the stake? I don't think so -- any more than it would be the fault of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine if the same nutjob felt that his views were "legitimized" by this: Sigh. Isn't it high time to end these cycles of witchcraft? MORE: I should add that if the above logo is in fact intended to be the logo of the proposed national health care system, I am appalled by the idea, because it is obviously derived from the Obama campaign logo, and it's use by a government agency would constitute political advocacy at taxpayers' expense. So if it is to be the logo, that's another reason to oppose Obamacare. posted by Eric on 08.14.09 at 12:08 PM
Comments
That story is kind of scary, but.... Check it out, you don't get any quotes from current law enforcement. Yes, they're investigating the guy in MD who obviously needs to be investigated. Then, they conflate in the guy in LA who said he was going to blow up the White House (someone get him a subscription to Randmacnally.com). I'm gonna assume he's pretty crazy and any superficial relationship to any political ideology is far outstripped by his fear of space-based mind-control rays (hmmmm, now that I think about it, maybe he's a Kucinich Dem?) Then, they have an ex-FBI and current ABC staffer give a quote (hmmm, Minitru quoting itself? Is that good media ethics? checking AP style guide, ummmm, no.) And check out their who their "experts" are when they get around to naming any Seriously, check them out. They always find right wing extremists and they always invoke Ruby Ridge, Waco and Tim McVeigh. This is worrisome as the media is trying to push their narrative that I'm a terrorist but Osama bin Laden isn't. To quote that eminent philosopher but crappy bird-chaser, Sylvester, "That'th dethpicable." Hopefully, the fine law enforcement people in the gov't take their vows seriously and don't allow the Chicago Machine to make dissent illegal. Veeshir · August 14, 2009 12:40 PM Eric - This whole thing started with Nancy Pelosi lying and claiming that people were bringing swastikas to town hall meetings. Her obvious implication is that those who are against "reform" are Nazis. Rush threw it back in her face, and she doesn't like it. But she's so stupid that she and the rest of the clowns in DC have doubled down on it. brian · August 14, 2009 12:43 PM Brian is right. Rush is just jerking their chains to make them yap. Bob Sykes · August 14, 2009 01:35 PM http://www.confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/290939.php The Confederate Yankee did much more research than I was willing to do. (plus, I figured you would like that particular oxymoron) Seriously, read all the stories about this, they all go back to Mark Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Veeshir · August 14, 2009 04:00 PM Thanks Veeshir. Unfortunately, it's worse than you might think. The SPLC is being used as a Homeland Security source: http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1473 ***QUOTE*** Last week, ALG News reported a startling update in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “rightwing extremism” threat assessment controversy after receiving an interim response from the department to Americans for Limited Government’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Instead of being sourced to hard intelligence and data, DHS based its findings of a “resurgence” of “rightwing extremism” upon outside sources, including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Anti-Defamation League, one conspiracy website, and a few news accounts of hate groups and incidences of violence. ***END QUOTE*** I checked out the links, and the above seems to be true. Much as I'd like to think that the SPLC isn't a government source, and that this is just "the media trying to push their narrative," it appears more likely that the narrative is becoming official. Eric Scheie · August 17, 2009 10:31 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"if you're on that no fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is canceled!" (Rahm Emanuel)
Mass. Wait Times activist narrative becomes government mainstream? Government Takeover Of Health Care No Longer An "Option" a crime is a game is a context Girlcott Whole Foods! Godwin Must Protest Here I go again, misinterpreting "end of life" consultations to death.... Bewitching symbolic resemblances just burn me up! "real people who are fired up who weren't engaged before"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
So now the left wingnuts feel justified and obligated to take out Rush??