Tread Lightly

yeaaaaaah... What Jackie says:



But really... there's been a disturbing amount of 'politically charged' violence lately and it looks like Domestic terrorism isn't letting up. Sad news all around.

I hesitate to proclaim that these twisted lunatics were right-wingers, or that they were steered toward murderous action by the rantings of O'Reilly and Beck. Cause and effect are often not a direct path. Especially when dealing with things as complicated as humans. Besides, ultimately the sole responsibility lies upon the sicko who pulls the trigger and kills innocent lives.

There will always be crazy people, fueled by paranoia and lies (see: militia movement on the right, 9/11 Truth on the left). In my experience, I find political persuasion has little to do with the like or dislike of rationally shifting through facts. I've met closed-minded Democrats and Conservatives of all shapes and sizes.

However, one of those groups produces noticeably more hate-filled rhetoric that the other. Can you really find a Left-wing pundit or radio star that rivals Limbaugh's influence and tone? Olbermann, maybe? Still a long way off. He's goofy, all right, and railed bitterly about Bush for the past 8 years, but I don't remember him aligning Obama with Al Qaeda. You can disagree with someone's ideas without frantically screaming that they are "palling around with terrorists", Hitler reincarnate and decidedly dooming our country to hell. Anyone who's taken a propaganda class would recognize those statements are highly emotionally charged-- purposely designed to both manipulate and aggregate panic and discord.

Regardless of who's doing the hate and fear mongering, I think it's fair (and perhaps constructive) to ask ourselves exactly how kind of incendiary talk impacts our population.

Do I believe O'Reilly is somehow criminally responsible for Tiller's death? Absolutely not. Do I think we should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Hell NO. Dangerous business, charging pundits as accomplices or censoring talking points. That's the point, no? People are allowed here to publicly protest and dissent without fear of prosecution.

Freedom of speech comes with a certain degree of responsibility. We can't forget that our words and actions do have very real consequences. Remember when Palin took the gloves off last fall? You saw the same ugly talking points parroted from angry demonstrators at McCain/Palin rallies. When Beck rants about liberal polices-- legalizing immigrants, gun control, bowing to Europe, stimulus spending and freeing terrorists-- it's not too surprising to find people are influenced by those words. Unfortunately, when related violence actually occurs it's not too far of a leap to wonder if these politicians and pundits have some blood on their hands-- not conducting or responsible for the tragedy, but somehow collaterally involved.

But to BLAME them? Say it's their FAULT.. as if they could have single-handedly prevented it? That feels like it needs direct, credible evidence. Evidence even book lists and chatroom posts don't offer.
If a third party is responsible for another person's actions, then it's fair to say we as a society are ALL to blame. Maybe there is some truth to that. If we all toned down the hysterical, emotional wailing, would there be less violence? If we bothered to speak up against hate and fear, would we become more rational? If we constructively listened to one another, would we be more humane? If we didn't, as a culture, glorify killing on TV and video games, would people be more peaceful? Hard to tell. Part of me doubts it, but another part of me is certain more anger and more guns is NOT the answer.

This is just one of those thing we can't govern into people: history has proven time and time again that we can't effectively govern morality (recall the Noble Experiment?). It's impossible to craft laws that force Americans to be better parents or outstanding citizens. Our legal system can create incentives for good behavior and negative consequences for injustice, but that's as good as it gets.
I feel like in the perfect world, people would just know that hysterical rants of doom and fascism on prime-time TV every day might possibly encourage badness. Unfortunately, modern advertising reveals how effective emotional messages (i.e. propaganda) are; I believe that's why these pundits talk that way: they want to push their agenda as far as possible. However, if I were influential and saying crap like that, regardless of the facts, I'd worry that my hateful speech might influence people to injure each other. We don't live in a vacuum. I guess if I didn't give a shit what the side effects might be, I would say the end (my ideology) justifies the means.

----

Not entirely off topic:
I strongly suggest you read these interesting Torture Emails written by Jim Comey under the Bush Administration. [A nod to Mr. Comey for the spirited opposition and frank assessment of the situation]. I'm surprised they haven't popped up more in the 'mainstream media'. It's fun to read the letters yourself, then compare with Greenwald's notes.
It's incredible, the DOJ isn't a damn café where the executive branch can simply 'order' up new legal definitions on a whim. Last I checked it was suppost to be a separate branch of our government.