Sticks And Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Can Make Me Bonkers

There is no evidence that Jared Loughner’s rampage in Tucson was influenced by vitriolic rhetoric. There is also no proof that it wasn’t. In light of the fact that it has happened at least three times in the recent past, and as David Brock (CEO of Media Matters For America) pointed out, by persons who admitted that they were heavily influenced by conservative vitriolic rhetoric, I don't think that it is much of a stretch to believe that rhetoric and imagery might have played some small part in this tragedy.

In light of the fact that Loughner’s anti-government sentiments closely mirror those of some in the Tea party movement, it is difficult to believe that he wasn’t motivated, at least in part, by the stories we have all seen about Tea partiers bringing weapons, or threatening to bring them, to political rallies. It is very easy to find images of signs carried by these folks depicting or threatening violence if they don’t get their way through more peaceful means. Search "we came unarmed this time".

The constant barrage of messages on talk radio and conservative television shows painting non-conservatives, and in some cases non-conservative enough conservatives, as anti-American, nazi, Marxist, and any number of other pejorative designed to elicit hatred of a group, cannot help but to fan the flames of divisiveness.

If anyone had actually even implied that these folks needed to join Mr. Loughner in whatever sentence he receives from this horrible incident, then one could understand their outrage. No one sane has seriously suggested that. It has only been suggested that there is the possibility that the vitriol did, in fact, play a role, and that it needs to be toned down.

Rather than accepting that as a good idea, some right-wing talking heads instead immediately launched attacks at the sheriff who first said it (without naming any names, I might add, so it is interesting that the bit dog barked) and went on the defensive, claiming to have been hurt themselves. This in itself should have shown the American people (especially those with children) that those protesting harbored at least a little self-perceived guilt.

Given that there would be absolutely zero repercussions to the talkers who may have influenced this guy, even if the FBI found a letter outlining exactly how he had been influenced, I am astonished at the response. Rather than admitting that words can, indeed, have influence, the conservative talkers, almost to a man, asserted in one breath that no, words can not have any influence, so even if this guy listened to nothing but Fox and conservative talk radio, they cannot be held responsible. Then, in almost the next breath, they have all proclaimed how much harm the speculation that they might have some culpability has done.

I don't think that it has been too much to ask that the vitriol be reined in, but apparently there are those who do not agree with me. Especially those on the right have, since Saturday, ramped up their vitriol, one person even suggesting that the only way to make the hatred stop is for the left to give in completely to the right. If, he suggested, the right gets everything they want, exactly how they want it, then and only then can the calls for revolution, the vile name-calling, the painting of non-conservative American citizens as enemies of the state, be expected to be stopped.

Family Values

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that the Republican Party’s idea of "family values" means hiring hookers, expense account strip joints, cheating on your wife with another woman, or cheating on your wife with a man?

Apparently letting gays get married would be far more dangerous to the "sanctity of marriage" than any of these things. From all of the reports of closet gay Republican politicians, I can see why they think so.

My guess is, to their way of thinking, if it is legal for a man to marry a man, ALL men will leave their families to marry other men. This must be a Republican phenomenon, because I have to assure everyone that, no matter how legal they make it for me to marry a man, I rather like women. Even if, by some awful twist of life, my wife was to leave me, I would still not marry a man to replace her. I have to think that most folks feel this way. Maybe I am wrong.

Most folks thought their Republican Congressmen were heterosexual, God-fearing family oriented men.

To quote one of my favorite Simpson’s characters: "HA HA"

Don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see

It never ceases to amaze how otherwise intelligent people will simply believe what someone else tells them. They don’t seem to bother to actually look into claims they hear on the radio or TV; they just take them at face value. Let’s look, for example, at the recent health care debates. And I use debates loosely, there seems to be a lot of angry rhetoric from both sides, not even actually resembling a debate.

Sarah Palin made the ludicrous claim that President Obama would set up a "death panel", a panel of government employees, that would take a look at how productive a person is and make a determination of whether to pay for health care based on that productivity. Conservative media figures picked that up and ran with it like a fumble. They have repeated it incessantly, apparently believing the old mantra "make the lie big, repeat it often, people will believe the lie to be truth". In fact, the only thing that could lead anyone to even consider such a remark is shear stupidity or shear malice. You pick which it is.

The section of the bill being considered that this comes from provides for Medicare to pay, once every five years, for VOLUNTARY end of life counseling. With your doctor, not a panel of government bureaucrats. Something that Medicare does not cover now. This would cover discussions about living wills, how long you want to be kept on life support (if at all), when hospice would be appropriate, etc. It would NOT cover discussion of suicide or euthanasia.

I have not been able to confirm this, but I heard (from one of the conservative talk shows, so probably false) that Ms. Palin said something to the effect of "if Americans actually read this bill, they would be appalled". I must submit, Ms. Palin, that if you actually made it a point to know what you are talking about before you open your pretty mouth, you might actually be vice-president now.

I have also heard the idiotic claim that bills in discussion would spend our tax dollars funding abortions. It is illegal, right now, and will remain so, to use Federal moneys to fund abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is in danger. Now I know that there are folks who don’t believe a woman should be able to have an abortion in even these circumstances, but those folks likely need to be beaten anyway.

And while I am on this subject, why do I keep hearing people talk about abortion as birth control? Last I checked, a condom was about a buck. I haven’t actually looked into it, but something tells me that abortions cost a heckuva lot more than a buck. Who can afford that kind of birth control? Frankly, if a woman has that kind of cash and wants to ruin her future reproductive abilities, I say let her. Maybe that branch of the stupid gene will end with her.

I drive around most of the day, so I listen to a lot of talk radio. I mix it up, I listen to one of the eight conservative stations, then to the one liberal station, then another of the eight, then back to the one, and so on.

I keep hearing, from the conservatives, how concerned they are about our taxes going up. I have to remind you folks that those guys you hear from that box in your dash or see on that box in your living room make TONS of cash. When they talk about taxes going up, they are talking about THEIR taxes going up. They are not concerned with yours. It is difficult for me to take seriously a guy who makes 40 million dollars a year just from his radio show, when he tries to make out like he has the same financial concerns that I do.

Apparently, there is a lot of flap over advertisers removing their ads from certain talk show hosts shows. People talk about boycotting stores that do not want to advertise on shows that foment hate and anger, and repeat malicious lies to further an agenda. Boycott, folks. Stand up for the rights of rich celebrities to act like they are actual newspersons. Let corporate America know, by your unwillingness to spend money on their products, that you think folks should be able to use the public airwaves to advocate hate and racism.

It amazes me that, if Pepsi ran an add claiming that Coke caused cancer, Pepsi would be fined hugely. Yet any idiot can go on an "entertainment" show and make false claims about someone or some policy he doesn’t like and that is fine.

I think my bottom line here is, do NOT just believe something because you heard it on the radio or saw it on TV. Actually do some research. Find out that people with agendas will lie to further that agenda. Even me.