Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: National Organization for Marriage’s new tactic: fear-mongering without using the word ‘religion’ Previous entry: Rick Warren: Freak Flag Flying

The consequences of right wing nuttery

It took about 48 hours for my prediction that the right wing ravings about the Obama Threat would turn into a shootout with the feds before the first act of such violence occurred—-hard right wingnut Richard Poplowski shot three Pittsburgh police who had shown up to his mother’s house after she asked them to come take him away because he was trespassing.  The event was overshadowed in the media by the Binghamton shootings.  What’s interesting about this particular crime is how it resembles and differs from the pattern I described.  Right wing nuts in the Clinton administration would concoct some justification for why federal authority didn’t apply to them, then break some law that would cause the authorities to come out, exchange gunfire with the police instead of surrendering, and then become right wing martyrs when someone in their compound got shot.  Instead of buying land and holing himself up there while declaring himself a sovereign nation or whatever, Poplowski took a shortcut and ambushed the police by going over to his mother’s house with an AK-47 and getting her to call the cops to get rid of him.  He also didn’t martyr himself, and he had no children on hand as useful martyrs. 

What’s startling about this is that it didn’t take long for a right wing nut to go off the deep end during the Obama administration.  Because Obama offends the right in many more ways that Clinton ever could—-being black, being urban, being a health nut, having a really tall wife, etc.—-this shouldn’t come as a surprise.  It took the right wing years to come up with enough paranoid theories about how evil the Clintons supposedly were before the proper air of non-stop paranoia had been established.  But all the paranoid urban legends you could ask for about Obama were established during the campaign.  Plus, you have something now that wasn’t around nearly as much during the Clinton administration—-mainstream media collusion with the paranoid right. 

Gary Kamiya at Salon has an article pointing out that no matter how off-the-radar Poplowski’s views were, the fact that they show up watered down in tone but steady in content in the mainstream media gives Poplowski and people like him reason to feel more self-assured about their paranoia.  Add to that the oversized right wing media that most of us would probably just choose to ignore, and you have a powerhouse reflecting the worst lies of the paranoid right back into their faces.

Poplawski’s black-helicopter and anti-Semitic ravings put him at the outer edge of the right. But his paranoid fear that Obama was going to take away his AK-47 is mainstream among conservatives. That fear, fomented by the NRA and echoed by right-wing commentators from Lou Dobbs to Limbaugh, is ubiquitous online. A right-wing, pro-gun Web site I Googled at random, Theodore’s World (slogan: “The PC Free Zone Gazette is American first and Conservative second. It is never anti-American!”), highlights several stories about black men who killed police officers. Commenting on one incident in which the suspect was wounded by another policeman, someone posting as “Bob F” writes, “It’s too bad when the cop’s partner shot back, he only wounded him. Now the taxpayers are going to have to pay for medical treatment and prison. The cost of a bullet is probably only .50 cents. Unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse on the streets as Obama and his minions disarm law abiding citizens while criminals run rampant.”

Much of the responsibility for this paranoia lies with the NRA. During the presidential campaign, the NRA ran ads that falsely painted Obama as coming for Americans’ guns. Screaming that he had a “10-point plan to change the Second Amendment,” the powerful lobby claimed that Obama planned to “ban use of firearms for home self-defense” and “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

It’s incredibly tempting to imagine that the fetid swamp of right wing ravings is a minor thing that can safely be ignored, but unfortunately, much of what grows there blossoms into something that can be tidied up and mainstreamed, causing the paranoids to feel justified in their imaginings, and also giving them incentive to up the ante.  During the Clinton years, the most they could hope for was to have their stuff legitimized by Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh, but now there’s Fox News, and even news networks like MSNBC are giving paranoid rantings airtime.  With just the crazy right/mainstream right feedback loop of the 90s, we had a situation that got so extreme we will have a hard time recovering.  The mainstreaming of radical anti-choice views has created a situation where NPR is acting like crisis pregnancy centers are legitimate service providers and Democrats like Tim Kaine are giving these women-harassment centers money.  The halls of Congress are filled with right wing paranoids who make speeches about god’s judgment and demand that it be given the same respect as real science- and evidence-based testimony.  And the relationship of Blackwater, who has taken untold amounts of federal money to run a lawless mercenary organization (while funding the anti-choice movement, no less) to the paranoid right deserves a book of its own.

Right now, things are spiraling out of control, because the wingnuts toss a bunch of shit up against Obama and it doesn’t feel like it was sticking like it did during the Clinton years, even though they have the advantage of more mainstream media access than they did then.  So they freak out and toss more and stinkier shit up.  The result—-right now, at least—-is that most people ignore them even harder, and the true believers get a little crazier every day.  But it hasn’t been that long into the administration.  It took the wingnuts years of blowing smoke around Clinton before they were able to find enough fire to impeach him. They don’t even need to be patient to cause damage—-they never seem to run out of energy when it comes to spinning paranoid bullshit.  That it’s off the charts on the nutty scale right now just concerns me more, not less, because that means that paranoid theories that would have sounded crazy before will seem relatively moderate in comparison. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:41 AM • (68) Comments

And with all their nutty right-wing stuff, I’m tempted to do the nuttiest, furthest left-wing crazy stuff to make “moderate” fall somewhere on the left instead of the right.  Obama’s going to take away the guns?  Time to start spreading the rumor that a secret dungeon room was found in the White House after Bush left.  A bunch of individuals are killing UU pacifists?  I know a few HMO CEO’s that I wouldn’t mind dead. 

If people are going to do this false “oh, the left is just as bad as the right” equivocation, I want to give them something that is ACTUALLY equal. I want that window to look at something that resembles reality.

But, I would feel silly, insane, and stupid.  That’s really the trick on the right; you can believe your own bullshit.

Comment #1: Antigone  on  04/08  at  12:04 PM

What really drives them nuts is that Obama doesn’t have a political weakness. He’s like FDR in that way.

Clinton had a propensity towards tawdry adultery scandals and did some shady stuff in Arkansas. Didn’t take long for them to figure that out, either (Jennifer Flowers came out during the New Hampshire Primary in ‘92).

They got nothing on Obama.

Comment #2: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  12:07 PM

Antigone, I hear you. The FBI is already more worried about the most radical people on the left, and routinely talks about how “eco-terrorism” is the biggest terrorist threat out there. The ELF and ALF have caused Millions of dollars of property damage, but all of their attacks are specifically designed to avoid targeting people (which makes me question the label of terrorist. Criminal, sure, but terrorist?). This in spite of the fact that there’s hundreds of these batshit crazy militia groups who are actually armed and obsessed with the idea of an impending war.

The thing that makes these kinds of equivalencies not make sense is that even the most extreme people on the left have some kind of nominal respect for human life (some of the crazier ones might think “the cause” is more important), whereas most of these extreme right-wing nuts don’t see other races as exactly human.

Comment #3: HonestB  on  04/08  at  12:25 PM

he ELF and ALF have caused Millions of dollars of property damage, but all of their attacks are specifically designed to avoid targeting people (which makes me question the label of terrorist. Criminal, sure, but terrorist?).

Yeah, they’re more like political vandals.

Comment #4: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  12:27 PM

Honestly, we need to deal with domestic terrorism the same way we should with international terrorism - careful police action, monitoring public activities for signs of violence, isolation of extreme members from the more mainstream, and making sure we don’t accidentally create martyrs.

Comment #5: Billingham  on  04/08  at  12:28 PM

For the first time ever, I received a phone call from the NRA just a few days ago.  The caller asked if I supported 2nd amendment rights; I said “unequivocally.”  Then he asked if I was concerned about “all the anti-gun forces taking over our government.” I said “absolutely not.”  He sounded a little surprised, then started to tell me about UN troops confiscating guns after Katrina. I cut him off and said “Do you know where you’re calling? This is Montana. Our Democrats are pro-gun. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere, thanks in part to the vigilance of the NRA.”

He said thanks and hung up.

The funny part is, the call actually got me to thinking that as an ACLU supporter, I feel pretty okay with the NRA as well, in principle. The Second Amendment deserves to be defended against slippery slopes as much as the First and Fourth do.

The trouble is—as this caller’s talking points demonstrated—the NRA traffics in urban legends and outright paranoia in pursuit of that defense.  Maybe you could accuse ACLU civil libertarians of the same thing, but it just strikes me as more dangerous coming from a movement that romanticizes armed revolt.

Comment #6: Cris  on  04/08  at  12:29 PM

It took the wingnuts years of blowing smoke around Clinton before they were able to find enough fire to impeach him.

And even then, Clinton had to help them.

Comment #7: Alex, FCD  on  04/08  at  12:29 PM

Cris—

I find there is a big difference between the local NRA organization and people (non-partisan, and even involved in conservation work) and the national one (hyper-partisan Republicans).

Comment #8: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  12:34 PM

Wouldn’t it be something if the local NRA organizations had an armed revolt against the national NRA organization that makes them all look like a bunch of gun-humping looney tunes?

Comment #9: Mighty Ponygirl  on  04/08  at  12:41 PM

how “eco-terrorism” is the biggest terrorist threat out there.

See this is exactly what I mean.  Left-wing loons waste a lot of money and time, and suggest counter-productive solutions to problems (See, PETA using sexism to protect animals, Sierra Club people building a “walking bridge for deer” in Seattle, ELF blowing up ABANDONED ski resorts), but right-wing nuts KILL people.  I’m becoming more and more convinced that conservatives don’t see the difference between “property” and “people” (debates in my law school classes have encouraged this view). 

*sigh* It’s really frustrating, because people who are “moderate” (meaning “apathetic”) by this frame, hook, line and sinker.

Comment #10: Antigone  on  04/08  at  12:41 PM

The funny part is, the call actually got me to thinking that as an ACLU supporter, I feel pretty okay with the NRA as well, in principle. The Second Amendment deserves to be defended against slippery slopes as much as the First and Fourth do.

This. I wish there were a leftist gun lobby. Or that the NRA would become non-partisan, but that isn’t going to happen.

Comment #11: asdf  on  04/08  at  12:45 PM

One of the reasons the people higher up in the NRA are resorting to lies and conspiracy theories is that they have largely accomplished their goals (there is something approaching a bi-partisan consensus on gun control where federal regulations are few but local variations are allowed for), but the NRA wants to keep the money flowing to its coffers so it has to keep justifying its own existence.

Comment #12: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  12:48 PM

Ben D:
I have no trouble believing that.  Sportsman’s organizations are one of my favorite examples of a convergence of interests; they strongly support both gun ownership (and education) and wildlife conservation (and access).

The trouble is, I think interpreting the 2nd amendment in the context of hunting is missing the point.  The amendment explicitly mentions militias, but is silent about duck hunting.  It’s appropriate to have an organization that defends the right to bear arms not as recreation, but as instruments of defense.

So in that sense, it’s not too surprising that the NRA attracts paranoids. The 2nd Amendment was founded on fear—fear of invasion (ah, those halcyon days before a standing army), insurgency, and tyranny.

Comment #13: Cris  on  04/08  at  12:53 PM

“Left-wing loons waste a lot of money and time, and suggest counter-productive solutions to problems (See, PETA using sexism to protect animals, Sierra Club people building a “walking bridge for deer” in Seattle, ELF blowing up ABANDONED ski resorts), but right-wing nuts KILL people.”

Property crimes of that scale have always been taken more seriously than murder…unless the criminal is a scandalously wealthy Wall Streeter…and then their crimes are invisible or something…

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  04/08  at  12:54 PM

The trouble is—as this caller’s talking points demonstrated—the NRA traffics in urban legends and outright paranoia in pursuit of that defense.

No.  The urban legends and outright paranoia are NOT being trafficked in in the defense of the Second Amendment.  The defense of the Second Amendment happens in public view when real debates about Second Amendment issues are happening.  Much like the ACLU has a real, public defense of the First Amendment.

The reason the NRA traffics in urban legends and paranoia is because of the secondary function of the NRA - as an industry special interest group of the gun industry.  These guys know that they can make high profits in an environment like this, and so they push these urban legends to drum up sales for their bottom line.  That’s why the NRA is into this fetid swamp of crap - they know it’s good for business.

You don’t see a similar thing on the ACLU side because there’s not an industry special interest group that backs the ACLU - even the media giants mostly stay away from the ACLU because it would be bad PR to be associated with a group that is willing to defend the free speech rights of anyone, no matter how odious (Illinois Nazis, for example).  But the gun industry is 100% behind the NRA and has always been willing to use it to push up profits.  And that’s what’s going on right now - Obama’s election is a bonanza for the bottom line of the gun industry, and they’re going to milk it for as long as they can.

Comment #15: NonyNony  on  04/08  at  12:57 PM

Yep the NRA is now a lobbying front for gun manufacturers and dealers.

Comment #16: Robert  on  04/08  at  01:03 PM

The funny part is, the call actually got me to thinking that as an ACLU supporter, I feel pretty okay with the NRA as well, in principle. The Second Amendment deserves to be defended against slippery slopes as much as the First and Fourth do.

And yet, the ACLU has never taken a 2nd Amendment case.  The ACLU of late has been disappointing me; they haven’t been taken cases that would normally be right up their alley, but didn’t because it was “free speech” for a conservative (Re: “Be Happy Not Gay”).

Oh, and I think the “guns for hunting” should be under the idea of social libertarianism, as opposed to any Constitutional argument.  Namely, we shouldn’t ban things for no good reason because we think it’s scary.

Comment #17: Antigone  on  04/08  at  01:04 PM

’m becoming more and more convinced that conservatives don’t see the difference between “property” and “people”

Sure they can - property is sacrosanct, (other) people aren’t.

The reason the NRA traffics in urban legends and paranoia is because of the secondary function of the NRA - as an industry special interest group of the gun industry.

This is also why those legends are so anti-UN. One of the primary functions of the NRA is to oppose the sort of international controls on the trade in small arms that would stop people shipping guns to human rights abusers (who happen to be good customers).

Comment #18: Dunc  on  04/08  at  01:10 PM

It took the wingnuts years of blowing smoke around Clinton before they were able to find enough fire to impeach him.

Since when is an affair with an intern looking to add a notch to her belt anything other than a tacky personal failure?  He deserved Hillary giving him shit for the rest of his life, not an impeachment.

Comment #19: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/08  at  01:19 PM

PitoR-

Since Americans have this weird, almost adolescent fascination with sex.

Oh, by the way, great framing.  It was the intern who was looking for a notch in her belt, not the far more powerful man with a history of adultery.  Right.

Though, I agree that appropriate penalty should have been him getting shit for the rest of her life.

Comment #20: Antigone  on  04/08  at  01:24 PM

To play devil’s advocate here, if I got a blow job while I was on the job, I’d be fired. Just saying.

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  01:35 PM

And no, I didn’t support impeachment. But it was worse than just adultery, he did it while he was supposed to be working. He should have been censured.

Comment #22: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  01:36 PM

Ben D.-

I’d get fired from one of my jobs if I dyed my hair pink.  I don’t think that should be a good reason to impeach a president.

Comment #23: Antigone  on  04/08  at  01:36 PM

Fair enough, Antigone. I still don’t like what he did, and it’s not because of ZOMG! TEH SEX!

It’s because the woman he was carrying on with 1)worked for him, and 2) he did it while he was supposed to be working. That makes it a notch worse than adultery.

Still no impeachment, though. Just censure and humiliation.

Comment #24: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  01:39 PM

The ELF and ALF have caused Millions of dollars of property damage, but all of their attacks are specifically designed to avoid targeting people

You seem to have this delusion that the state is here to defend people rather than property…

Comment #25: BlackBloc  on  04/08  at  02:00 PM

“Just censure and humiliation. “

Which he got, though through impeachment.

I was 14 when the impeachment happened, and even back then I didn’t really understand why people cared so much about Clinton’s sex life.

Comment #26: Ashley  on  04/08  at  02:01 PM

“But it was worse than just adultery, he did it while he was supposed to be working.”

...let’s be fair here.  The President is “supposed to be working” 24/7.  There really isn’t any private time for POTUS, unless it’s in the form of a few minutes here or there.  (Bush Jr. is the idiot who thought it was a 9-to-5 job)  You’re “on duty” or “on call” non-stop.  And a human being is not a robot.

I’m not saying that dismisses Clinton’s actions, but let’s not make it into something that’s more grievous than it really was…

Comment #27: MikeEss  on  04/08  at  02:04 PM

Well, yeah, but he did it in the Oval Office at 2 in the afternoon while he was talking to a member of Congress about troops levels in Bosnia! That’s like trying to make it outrageous as possible.

I was 14 when the impeachment happened, and even back then I didn’t really understand why people cared so much about Clinton’s sex life.

I didn’t get it, either, except for the fact that it was with a person subordinate to him. But that’s not what the Republicans got outraged about. And seeing as Newt Gingrich did the same thing with one of his secretaries, they had no room to talk shit about that.

Comment #28: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  02:09 PM

It also pretty much allowed the 2000 election to be close enough for Bush to steal it. Without Monicagate Gore would have won handily. I can’t quite bring myself to forgive the Clintons for that.

Comment #29: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  02:10 PM

The ACLU of late has been disappointing me; they haven’t been taken cases that would normally be right up their alley, but didn’t because it was “free speech” for a conservative (Re: “Be Happy Not Gay”).

http://www.rrstar.com/homepage/x1779605229

Posted Feb 19, 2008 @ 06:41 AM
CHICAGO — The American Civil Liberties Union has joined a Naperville high school student in her fight to wear a T-shirt that expresses opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds.

The ACLU has filed a friend of the court brief in U.S. District Court arguing that the School District’s policy prohibiting disparaging speech is unlawfully vague and should distinguish between protected protest commentary and harassment.

Heidi Zamecnik of Naperville last year wore a T-shirt saying “Be Happy, Not Gay” on the Day of Silence, during which students can refrain from speaking as an effort to protest discrimination against homosexuals.

Comment #30: asdf  on  04/08  at  02:13 PM

“I can’t quite bring myself to forgive the Clintons for that.”

100% agree with that…

Comment #31: MikeEss  on  04/08  at  02:15 PM

I for one am liking all this batshit insane craziness being displayed in broad daylight. The fundies and neo nazi right wing nuts were always like this but always had someone softening their image for public consumption.. like this recent idiot that said “I’ve never heard Rush say a racists or insensitive remark”. Rush listeners knew he was lying but they were in on the con act. Of pretending rush is reasonable and they are normal.

Their mask is slipping and the more the public sees their ugly deranged true face, the better. They hidden it well all this years and that is why they got so powerful.

Comment #32: Renmiri  on  04/08  at  02:37 PM

Antigone - the ACLU doesn’t generally handle 2nd Amendment cases, because the NRA jumps on those.  The ACLU really only takes a case if the person or organization can’t afford other representation.  They have filed many amicus briefs in 2nd Amendment cases defending the broadest possible reading of it.

Comment #33: Geeno  on  04/08  at  02:44 PM

“It also pretty much allowed the 2000 election to be close enough for Bush to steal it. Without Monicagate Gore would have won handily.”

Well, that and the most biased media coverage ever seen in an election.  And Gore running an electoral campaign soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad that it was ooooooooooooooooooooooooooonly just this side of having “Kikes R Us!” as the slogan for one’s run for one’s synagogue’s governing board.

Comment #34: seeker6079  on  04/08  at  02:57 PM

Well, that and the most biased media coverage ever seen in an election.  And Gore running an electoral campaign soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad that it was ooooooooooooooooooooooooooonly just this side of having “Kikes R Us!” as the slogan for one’s run for one’s synagogue’s governing board.

Well, yeah. All Gore had to do, even with Monicagate, was just say “Hey America, did you like the last eight years? Well, we can have the same stuff for the next eight, without the tawdry sex scandals!” and it would have been a 300+ EV blowout.

Also giving up on trying to win Arkansas and Tennessee and focusing only on Florida near the end was REALLY REALLY fucking stupid. He could have won both with more effort.

Comment #35: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  02:59 PM

Ben D m’dear: if we start on how badly Gore screwed the pooch in 2000 we will be here for some time.

In Gore’s defence, though, 2000 was an outright evil year for media bias and downright seething hostility and deceit against him, something also well canvassed and well documented.  Gore could have run into a burning building, kicked down apartment doors and saved sixteen children and the next day’s headlines would have been about how he didn’t respect people’s rights to be secure in their own homes.

Comment #36: seeker6079  on  04/08  at  03:08 PM

While I agree that, in general, right wing paranoid wackaloons are more dangerous, to call ELF, ALF, and related organizations merely “vandals” is incredibly naive and insulting to the people that are targeted. While the acts that are publicized are the crimes that affect only the bottom line of major corporations (e.g. destroying hummers, burning abandoned ski lodges), it is far more common for people associated with these organizations to target researchers and their institutions. Researchers from public institutions like UCLA doing important work on cancer and epidemiology using non-human animals have been repeatedly targeted with pipe bombs at their houses (or their neighbors’ houses; we’re not talking about geniuses), as well as destroyed workspaces and “Wanted” lists similar to the lists targeting abortion doctors. I know a few such researchers, and it is both terrorizing and chilling.

Comment #37: Jeffrey the Green  on  04/08  at  03:11 PM

Oh, by the way, great framing.  It was the intern who was looking for a notch in her belt, not the far more powerful man with a history of adultery.  Right.

Given her jokes about bringing her kneepads to teh White House and her deliberate courting of Clinton, it’s warranted.  Lewinsky wasn’t a blushing virgin or Clinton’s victim; she deliberately went out to have sex with the most powerful man on the planet.  And Clinton, that friggin’ fool, went for a big-haired willing youngster fluttering her eyelashes.

As regards the sex, there were no victims there, just two idiots who both should have known better.

Comment #38: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/08  at  03:42 PM

I think that what Jeffrey the Green says is irreconcilable with the “left is less dangerous” meme of others on the thread.  Truth is, the national security agencies of the USA have always been far more scared of “left” terrorism than “right” terrorism; it’s encoded in their genes.  It’s also why state and local authorities will waste time and money having CI/CT officers sitting in on, say, Quakers, rather than infiltrating the local Krazy AntiKommie Kill Klub.  (Things were not helped, at a Federal level, by Louis Freeh turning the FBI into a GOP subsidiary and totally screwing over the CI/CT sections.)

One is also tempted to note that in many instances it is not difficult for state and local authorities to keep an eye on local right wing nutjobs: they either work with them or see them at family reunions.  </snark>

Comment #39: seeker6079  on  04/08  at  03:50 PM

In figuring out why the right-wing crazies are ramping up so fast, I think you also have to consider the cognitive dissonance that was the past 8 years.

All sorts of paranoid, right-wing fantasies of the horrors that Bill Clinton and “libruls” were going to visit upon the nation came to fruition in some form or another under Cheney/Bush.

The Patriot Act
Unauthorized, warrantless, oversight-free surveillance of electronic communications
Guns being confiscated from ordinary citizens in New Orleans during the Katrina Aftermath
Secret Prisons
The Constitution shredded

Comment #40: jerry_101  on  04/08  at  03:50 PM

asdf-

I stand corrected.  YAY ACLU!

Comment #41: Antigone  on  04/08  at  03:54 PM

Just in case it’s hard to tell on the internet, that was sincere.  I really am happy to hear that; and am against the politicizing of the ACLU, and it makes me glad to hear that I misjudged them in that case.

Comment #42: Antigone  on  04/08  at  03:55 PM

Would it be too much to ask for us to actually talk about the NRA and the mainstreaming of black-helicopter paranoia and not just cluck our tongues incessantly at the Clenis?

Comment #43: stogoe  on  04/08  at  04:00 PM

half my comment disappeared.

anyway, I was just pointing out that the right wing super-crazies have spent the past 8 years seeing paranoid fantasies come true and have supported those fantasies coming true because it was one of their own committing the legal atrocities.

As soon as Bush left office, the cognitive dissonance exploded and they saw a Democrat in the White House, so suddenly, it was Obama who’s responsible for all the crimes of BushCo.

Comment #44: jerry_101  on  04/08  at  04:13 PM

During the Clinton years, the most they could hope for was to have their stuff legitimized by Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh,

Amanda, you’re forgetting your history in a big way. I do think Faux News hadn’t come into its own, but the mainstream media had no problem helping far-right smears against the Clintons and even taking the lead (Maureen Antoinette). You specifically mention MSNBC giving time to nutjobs. Well, Chris ‘Douchebag’ Matthews brought on Gennifer Flowers to talk about the Clinton murder list.

Comment #45: hf  on  04/08  at  04:31 PM

Would it be too much to ask for us to actually talk about the NRA and the mainstreaming of black-helicopter paranoia and not just cluck our tongues incessantly at the Clenis?

I wouldn’t even know where to begin with the NRA and the black helicopter paranoia.  “The Invisibles” is about as much as I know about that strand of thought.

Comment #46: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/08  at  04:38 PM

“...even the media giants mostly stay away from the ACLU because it would be bad PR to be associated with a group that is willing to defend the free speech rights of anyone, no matter how odious (Illinois Nazis, for example).”

To give some credit where it’s due, in my ACLU of Michigan newsletter I saw that the Detroit Red Wings and the Detroit Shock both donated items to an ACLU-benefiting auction. Go professional sports teams not afraid of being associated with the dread ACLU!

Comment #47: witless chum  on  04/08  at  05:07 PM

correction:

I don’t think that what Jeffrey the Green says is irreconcilable

A day without coffee is a day spent in the company of one’s typos.

Comment #48: seeker6079  on  04/08  at  05:29 PM

Whatever you think of the ALF and ELF’s tactics, I am offended by Jeffrey the Green’s attempt to equivocate between anti-abortion and animal rights advocates. The only way in which the two could be remotedly connected in your mind is if you do consider that an unthinking blob of cells is equivalent to a living, thinking being that can feel pain. That’s the ‘pro-life’ position.

The poor researchers we’re supposed to be feeling sorry about are active participants in torture.

Comment #49: BlackBloc  on  04/08  at  05:37 PM

Two major flaws with this blog entry:

1. Police officers aren’t “Feds”.
2. It’s purely speculation that Poplawski shot those officers because of his anti-government views.

Now if Poplawski had killed some real feds (FBI, DEA, ATF) because they were coming to take his guns or commit some other act of jackbootery, then this blog entry would be fairly accurate.

People are trying to make this Poplawski incident into a Ruby Ridge, when in reality it’s closer to a Lovelle Mixon.

Comment #50: Gerald  on  04/08  at  05:51 PM

“I can’t quite bring myself to forgive the Clintons for that.”

how exactly was this Hillary’s fault? i was sick of the conflation of the two of them throughout the interminable nomination process, but for fuck’s sake! in this instance, it’s egregious.

Comment #51: sophiefair  on  04/08  at  06:14 PM

I am offended by Jeffrey the Green’s attempt to equivocate between anti-abortion and animal rights advocates.

Was he doing that? Or was he making a comparison to the “wanted” lists that either group may produce? In other words, I think he was making a comparison to the terror each engender.

Also, I can’t help thinking of Ted Kaczynski/Una Bomber, The Weather Underground, SLA and the like. All from a left perspective I’m almost certain with theories to match. I’m not discounting the original point of this post at all, or trying to find some bullshit common ground(concern troll I guess) but whether you’re blowing people or property up, haven’t you turned the corner to fuckin’ crazy either way? I guess I was surprised by the term “political vandal”. Occupying a building in protest is one thing, blowing it up is way another.

Comment #52: Danzig  on  04/08  at  06:50 PM

seeker6079:

don’t

Thanks for the correction, I was wondering about that.

Comment #53: Cris  on  04/08  at  07:29 PM

This. I wish there were a leftist gun lobby. Or that the NRA would become non-partisan, but that isn’t going to happen.

30% of the politicians endorsed by the NRA are democrats. They are as bipartisan as possible.

If there were more pro-gun democrats, they’d endorse more.

Comment #54: Gerald  on  04/08  at  07:40 PM

I’m becoming more and more convinced that conservatives don’t see the difference between “property” and “people” (debates in my law school classes have encouraged this view).

There is a muddying of the waters on this subject in the conservative mind. As with so many other things and views conservative, it involves the elevation of property above people. I think the problem that I have with most conservatives and their outlooks is not that they don’t see the difference between property and people, but rather that they privilege property above people.

Comment #55: Mister Naxal  on  04/08  at  08:12 PM

The Unabomber wasn’t coming from a leftist perspective. He was coming from what we would now call a Libertarian perspective. In fact, if you read his manifesto (which I won’t blame you if you didn’t, considering its litterary quality, or lack thereof), half of it is a poorly written screed against Leftism which would make a Bircher blush of embarrassment.

The only reason to think of him as a leftist is if you bought into the idea that environmental issues are somehow left-wing, rather than beyond the whole left/right divide.

Comment #56: BlackBloc  on  04/08  at  09:40 PM

I guess I was surprised by the term “political vandal”. Occupying a building in protest is one thing, blowing it up is way another.

Well yeah, sure, they’re different. The former is criminal trespassing. The latter is vandalism. Damaging or destroying property is called vandalism.

Comment #57: asdf  on  04/08  at  10:31 PM

how exactly was this Hillary’s fault?

She didn’t divorce him.

I would have supported Hillary in the primaries if one of two things had happened 1) she divorced Bill over Monicagate, 2) she voted against the Iraq War.

Comment #58: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  11:45 PM

You can’t tell me with a straight face the reason she didn’t divorce Bill in 1998 was because she figured it would be easier to run for President later if she had the last name “Clinton”.

Comment #59: Ben D.  on  04/08  at  11:46 PM

Ben by extending this discussion about the Clintons and their actions post the public airing of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky you are buying into the same frame of mind as led to the ridiculous (and from this side of the world unfathomable) impeachment. Infidelity in marriage is common. People in those marriages react to it in many different ways, sometimes separating and sometimes remaining together as a couple. They do so for a number of reasons, reasons which are usually personal and specific to the individual couple. This is not all some vast political conspiracy.

Also PIATOR you are wrong about who should take blame. It doesn’t matter if Monica Lewinsky came into Bill Clinton’s office dressed in a g-string and a t-shirt with “fuck me now” on it. The power differential means his culpability far outweighs hers. She was his employee. He, in that role, owes her a duty of care, care which is enormously ethically compromised by entering into a sexual relationship with her. I do agree that both of them were idiots though.

Comment #60: JC  on  04/09  at  12:16 AM

Cris  on  04/08  at  11:53 AM
The amendment explicitly mentions militias, but is silent about duck hunting.

Because the Second Amendment is about militias. It’s amazing that even lefties still insist on adding more to the text than they see. The Second Amendment is about militias. That’s. Fucking. It. Everybody had rifles when the Framers were getting this whole “written Constitition” thing together and it was expected that the states—not the fed—would regulate any arms issues. Recall that many people literally lived off what they hunted, so specific legislation to grant people the right to guns was considered nutty on a good day. I remember reading that an activist at the time kept petitioning the Continental Congress to include a specific right of the common citizen to bear arms—and the one time, and the only time, it was addressed on the floor was to basically rebuff and humuliate the prick, since it was obvious the right had been relegated to the states. As such, the states can do as the damn well please about it. . .

. . .and the U.S. Congress through the awesome power of the Commerce Clause (it was there all along kids, really!) could use the purse to further tweak or squelch it.

___

The NRA isn’t merely a “bad” special interest. It’s criminal. 50% of its sales go to criminals. 50% of its legitimate sales go to criminals. We’re way fucking beyond conflict of interest. The NRA sees the stats on cop deaths, sees a correlation between that and the sales of hollow-point bullets, sees the sales figures thereof, and it and its clients (the can be considered one entity) shrug and say, “hey, what ya gonna do?” The interests of the NRA and the interest of non-corporate crime (gotta make that distinction) are identical. Even if the Second Amendment had all the secret Kabbalah language that its idolaters thought was in its text, the NRA wouldn’t be about protecting the Constitution. It will happily shred the other parts of the Constitution even under that Warner Bros. cartoon level of absurdity universe. It’s about maximizing profits for its clients, and that means maintaining strong criminal purchasing power. That’s why its opposition to the gun registry database was so strong—and why it was pleased with its utter success on the issue. The next step in this struggle is for the states to start suing gun manufacturers for selling guns to criminals. Manufacturers know good and well that if they were to stop selling to thugs they lose half their sales. So, naturally, their attack dog, the NRA simply makes sure they can’t be sued.

Comment #61: No One of Consequence  on  04/09  at  12:41 AM

Ben D.

I can say, perfectly easily, with a straight face that I don’t know the Clinton’s private life and it’s none of my fucking business.  Furthermore, I can say with a straight face that judging a woman for staying with someone who cheats is victim blaming on the same spectrum (though clearly not as bad as) asking why an abused woman doesn’t leave someone. 

People’s reasons for doing things are different.

Comment #62: Antigone  on  04/09  at  12:42 AM

Also PIATOR you are wrong about who should take blame. It doesn’t matter if Monica Lewinsky came into Bill Clinton’s office dressed in a g-string and a t-shirt with “fuck me now” on it. The power differential means his culpability far outweighs hers. She was his employee.

I didn’t make a comment about blame per se, I stated that (i) she went out to have sex with him and (ii) no-one was a victim.

I also question the framing of Clinton as her “boss”, which always struck me as a wingnut meme bought out to smear Clinton.  Only on the most technical basis is this is correct - the situation is considerably different from the normal dynamic where a position of power can coerce sexual favours.  No-one can be coerced to have sex with a guy surrounded at every moment with an entourage of hangers on; you really, really have to work at it just to get the opportunity to have sex.  Likewise, he’s in no position to threaten to fire her if she doesn’t give over.

A White House staffer might be in a position to do this sort of thing; a president is not.  In a real sense, he doesn’t run the White House; it is run on his behalf.

She was attracted to power, but I don’t believe you can claim he was her employer in any meaningful sense.

Comment #63: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/09  at  12:52 AM

The NRA isn’t merely a “bad” special interest. It’s criminal. 50% of its sales go to criminals. 50% of its legitimate sales go to criminals.

The NRA doesn’t sell anything other than a few collectibles, hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. And all those sales are legitimate.

It’s about maximizing profits for its clients, and that means maintaining strong criminal purchasing power. That’s why its opposition to the gun registry database was so strong—and why it was pleased with its utter success on the issue.

Actually, it’s the 4+ million members of the NRA that oppose gun registration. But let’s not let facts spoil your spiel.

Manufacturers know good and well that if they were to stop selling to thugs they lose half their sales.

Incorrect. There are 250-280 million firearms in the US. 99.97% of them are in the hands of people who aren’t thugs.

Comment #64: Gerald  on  04/09  at  01:03 AM

The NRA doesn’t sell anything other than a few collectibles, hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. And all those sales are legitimate.

The sales involved would be those of its clients. I pointed out their interests were identical.

Incorrect. There are 250-280 million firearms in the US. 99.97% of them are in the hands of people who aren’t thugs.

At this point your myths are up against police department data. Swing and a miss.

Comment #65: No One of Consequence  on  04/09  at  02:05 AM

To be fair to Gerald, I oppose registration as well, and I’m hardly a “thug”.  The reasons to oppose registration vary, but I’m going to throw my main reason as a student of history: there has been no government that has done registration that hasn’t also later banned guns.

Comment #66: Antigone  on  04/09  at  01:51 PM

The sales involved would be those of its clients. I pointed out their interests were identical.

The only “clients” they have are their members. So what sales would that be?

At this point your myths are up against police department data. Swing and a miss.

What police department data?

Comment #67: Gerald  on  04/10  at  05:25 AM

To be fair to Gerald, I oppose registration as well, and I’m hardly a “thug”.  The reasons to oppose registration vary, but I’m going to throw my main reason as a student of history: there has been no government that has done registration that hasn’t also later banned guns.

You’re absolutely right.

But I want to add one more thing. Governments that register guns not only eventually ban them, but they also confiscate them. And those who refuse to register or turn in their guns end up being turned into de facto criminals.

Fortunately, I don’t think that will ever happen in the US. Unlike the other countries that have had gun registrations and confiscations, the US is literally saturated in guns. I think there is a gun for every 9 out of 10 people. They could never find them all and the vast majority of people would simply refuse to cooperate with any registration or confiscation..

Comment #68: Gerald  on  04/10  at  05:35 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.