Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 

PEEK archive by date:

«November 2009»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Use » and « to view other months.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Blogroll

Afro-Netizen
All Spin Zone
Altercation
Americablog
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Another Iranian Online
August J. Pollak
Baghdad Burning
Barry Lando
Bloggrrrlz Gallery
Blondesense
Bob Geiger
Body and Soul
Boing Boing
Booman Tribune
BOP News
Bush Watch
BUZZFLASH
Carpetbagger
Clean Air Blog
Cool Hunting
Corrente
CrooksandLiars
Cursor
Dahr Jamail
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
DC Media Girl
DemiOrator
Direland
Echidne of the Snakes
Elayne Riggs
Eschaton
Fact-esque
Falafel Sex, and Other Things Best Left Unsaid
Farai Chideya
Feminist Peace Network
Feministe
Feministing
Frameshop
Gristmill
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
James Wolcott
Jesus General
Lady Jayne's Blog
Liberal Oasis
Mad Kane
Mahablog
Majikthise
Media Girl
Media is a Plural
MediaCitizen
Metafilter
Michael Berube
MyDD
News Dissector
News For Real
Norbizness
Oliver Willis
Pacific Views
Pandagon
Political Animal
PopPolitics.com
PR Watch
Prometheus 6
Raed in the Middle
RH Reality Check
Robert Greenwald
Roger Ailes
Rox Populi
Sadly, No!
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeares Sister
Sirotablog
Sisyphus Shrugged
skippy the bush kangaroo
Slacktivist
SpeakSpeak
Stay Free!
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
TBogg
Thatcoloredfellasweblog
The Bilerico Project
The Hutchinson Political Report
The Republic of T
The Revealer
The Sideshow
The Swift Report
Think Progress
This Modern World
TikvahGirl
Trish Wilson
War and Piece
Waveflux
What She Said!
Whiskey Bar
Working Families Vote 2008

Did Right-Wing Shock Jocks Motivate Knoxville Killer?

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 7:00 AM on July 29, 2008.


Hateful talk about one's enemies undermining the nation leads to hateful acts in response.
Post Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
309 COMMENTS
jimdavidadkisson
jim david adkisson

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

RSS iconPEEK RSS Feed

RSS iconMain AlterNet RSS Feed

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

When police searched the car of the gunman who opened fire in a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, they found a 4-page letter expressing his hatred of the "liberal movement." A regular consumer of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, Jim David Adkisson was only following the arguments they make day in and day out to their logical conclusions.

From the Knoxville News Sentinel:

Police found right-wing political books, brass knuckles, empty shotgun shell boxes and a handgun in the Powell home of a man who said he attacked a church in order to kill liberals "who are ruining the country," court records show.
Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical.
Adkisson targeted the church ... "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Adkisson [said] that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."
Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."
Adkisson said he also was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job, Owen said.
Owen said Adkisson specifically targeted the church for its beliefs, rather than a particular member of the congregation.
"It appears that church had received some publicity regarding its liberal stance," the chief said. The church has a "gays welcome" sign and regularly runs announcements in the News Sentinel about meetings of the Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays meetings at the church.
Owen said Adkisson's stated hatred of the liberal movement was not necessarily connected to any hostility toward Christianity or religion per say, but rather the political advocacy of the church.
The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.
Conservatism used to be an ideology -- conservatives believed in getting government off of people's backs, they believed in fiscal restraint and small central government, they believed we should have a humble foreign policy focused on watching out for ourselves and not trying to rule the world and they detested experiments in social engineering.

In the post-World War II era, it was a widely-loathed ideology and liberalism was dominant. Democrats were proud liberals who wanted to build a more just society and most Republicans were liberals who believed we should do so much more gradually and carefully than their opponents.

Beginning in the middle of the last century, conservatives abandoned any semblance of ideological coherence -- when in power, they spend more on pet projects than liberals, are more interventionist in their foreign policy than their liberal counterparts and are all-too-happy to meddle in the most private affairs of the citizenry (think: opposition to birth control; Terri Schiavo). Conservatism gave way to "backlash" conservatism, which is, in practice, little more than an ideology of resentment. Thomas Frank, in a less tragic context, coined the phrase "conservative plenty-plaint" to describe it -- a list of grievances, great and small, that are all somehow attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the supposed evils of liberalism.

It was a strategic choice, one that may be attributed to Joe McCarthy or Spiro Agnew or Richard Nixon, and it has consequences. As villifying the left became incredibly lucrative -- Rush Limbaugh has a contract worth $400 million, Ann Coulter makes a fortune on her pabulum -- the competition became fierce, and the charges against liberalism went further and further over the top.

David Neiwert calls it "eliminationist" rhetoric -- putting forth the idea that one's opponents are not simply in disagreement, do not simply have a different and competing political philosophy, do not just believe that their approach to solving problems is superior but are bent on destroying the country, the culture, even the family unit from within. And, more importantly, that they must be destroyed or exiled.

Consider the narratives we hear so frequently, from right-wing talk radio, to the right-blogs to Fox News. Liberals are traitors. Liberals hate the troops, stab them in the back, hate America. They are "anti-family", they hate God. They want America to be destroyed by its enemies, whether Soviet shock troops or "Islamofascist" terrorists.

I'm not denying for a second that progressives and liberals are filled with anumus towards the right, but it is an animus of a different nature. Most progressives believe that conservative leaders are greedy, self-interested and represent only the interests of the very wealthy, and their followers are simply chumps dazzled by social issues into voting against their own interests. We don't consider them to be bent on the destruction of our country (even if some of us believe that is the likely outcome of their governance).

The difference manifests itself, not infrequently, in incidents like what went down in Tennessee. It's certainly not isolated -- just last week, a group of teens beat a Latino migrant to death. And why not? People like Michelle Malkin don't make arguments about the costs and benefits of immigration; they paint a picture of an invading army bent on our destruction. They say that illegal immigration is part of a plot to "reconquer" parts of America -- literally to annex the SouthWest. Abortion clinics are bombed, and providers are assassinated, and the bombers and assassins inevitably see the procedure as "killing babies" -- who wouldn't act to stop actual babies from being killed?

When people view themselves as facing an existential threat to their nation, to their very way of life, they defend themselves -- it's a natural reaction. It appears that Jim David Adkisson, unemployed, no doubt mentally disturbed, believed he was taking action to defend his country, his community. He did it because of "his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." A picture-perfect summary of the back-lash conservative message. It was a predictable consequence of the constant cries of DolchStoß from the backlash right.

Of course, when one points this out one is immediately derided as an enemy of free speech, even if one never even suggests that this kind of speech should be regulated in any way. The hate-peddlers use "free speech" as a shield from criticism, as if it means the freedom to not have one's speech examined or condemned.

I'm not advocating censorship here, but at the same time, I think it's important to note that inciting people to violence is not a protected form of speech. In Rwanda, the genocide of 800,000 people was spurred on by extremists on the radio -- Rwanda's Shock-Jocks -- who said that it was every loyal Hutu's duty to wipe out the "cockroaches" who were destroying the country, and that speech was condemned as a crime against humanity.

Digg!

Tagged as: eliminationist rhetoric, tennessee church shooting, shock-jocks

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.


Return to PEEK  » Post Tools: email EMAIL print PRINT 309 COMMENTS PERMALINK
Also in PEEK
Breast Flaunting for Jesus
The life of a failed California beauty pageant contestant gets even weirder.
Post by Thers. November 11, 2009.		 Dobbs to Quit CNN
Dobbs, under fire, to seek greener pastures.
Post by Staff. November 11, 2009.		 Under Pressure From Tea Party Activists, Charleston GOP Censures Lindsey Graham For Bipartisanship
Part of the fury from the right against Graham is being spurred by the oil and coal industry.
Post by Lee Fang. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
UU
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dayenta on Jul 29, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a UU, I find this sad beyond words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's a UU? nm Posted by: Plexius2
» RE: UU Posted by: Malamute
» RE: UU Posted by: dayenta
» RE: UU Posted by: Malamute
» RE: UU Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: UU Posted by: racetoinfinity
» RE: Fellow UU Posted by: Marauder
» How do you pronounce that? Posted by: papibear
yet another...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 29, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another "conservative" republican witha persecution complex aping the rhetoric of people like Hitler and Pol Pot who really needs to take a good long look at who has been in the white house and congress most of the Bush administration, as well as realize that the media is not liberal and that is very well evidenced by the presense of so many people like OReilly and Savage. Their shows are everywhere. Their books are everywhere. Their party has been in control of everything for about 6 years... and still they are supposedly voiceless and powerless???

Needless to say, this guy was obviously psychotic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I wonder Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I wonder Posted by: emmas
» one can add... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I wonder Posted by: outsideagitator
» I'd like to say... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I wonder Posted by: Sunfell
» RE: I wonder Posted by: Lauren
Digg
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jul 29, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of speculation out there that this guy was motivated by hatred of religion. You can help push back on that by digging this post.

Thanks,

JH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you - Orcinus Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Thank you - Orcinus Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Thank you - Orcinus Posted by: astockton
» RE: Thank you - Orcinus Posted by: Squarehead
» Digg (and Randy Pausch) Posted by: jmooney
WHAT no books by
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JSquercia on Jul 29, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What no books by Ann Coulter I am shocked .Interestingly these same hate merchants claimed this was an attack on church goers by a deranged Liberal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHAT no books by Posted by: Lauren
» RE: WHAT no books by Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: WHAT no books by Posted by: Lauren
» RE: WHAT no books by Posted by: Squarehead
» Anyone Who Thinks That a Liberal Posted by: woodford54
» Maybe he's anti-tranny Posted by: Beached Whale
toxic puff balls
[Report this comment]
Posted by: particle on Jul 29, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The hate-peddlers use "free speech" as a shield from criticism, as if it means the freedom to not have one's speech examined or condemned."

Yes. And they always use it with an cynical smirk, because deep down they hate the very idea of free and open discourse. Because deep down they're afraid of anything that might expose them for the third rate little creeps that they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: toxic puff balls Posted by: racetoinfinity
Ironic
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jul 29, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read that the possible trigger for the gunman was that he had just lost his food-stamps. But it wasn't the far right who initiated the program of food stamps. And it was likely the far right that somehow helped to end this man's payments. What is further ironic is that the church he shot up would have helped the man by giving him food.

It seems to me that almost all the problems of America can be traced back, not to liberals, but to conservatives, at least to the ultra-conservatives that run this country today. It would figure that the shooter would be person who has had his sense of judgement so twisted by the right-wing ideologies of hate that he would blame, not whom is really at fault for all his problems, but blame those who are the very LEAST at fault for his problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Typical rightwing bullshit. Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Typical rightwing bullshit. Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Typical rightwing bullshit. Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Foodstamps are a state program Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Ironic Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Ironic Posted by: PoetWarrior
» RE: Ironic Posted by: Tom Tele
» RE: Ironic Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Ironic Posted by: gray
» RE: Ironic Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Ironic Posted by: navy-vet
Takes One To Know One
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jul 29, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate the analysis of how shock-jocks influenced this event. At the same time, the most successful demagogues peddle in what people to some extent already believe. It's hard to imagine how one, even Mr. Adkisson, could be convinced (implying an initial position of non-belief) of the sorts of things cited as underpinning this event, unless one was already somehow inclined to believe them. That's not to naturalize their beliefs or something, but to point out that we have to talk about motivations from above and below, so to speak, from both the perspective of obvious authority-figures (shock-jocks, for example) and more subterranean influences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Takes One To Know One Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Takes One To Know One Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Takes One To Know One Posted by: Lauren
Stoked Anger, +festering domestic violence
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mcubed on Jul 29, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the right-wing media's influence on the shooter's actions is clear, it also looks like he may have been targeting a group he associated with his ex-wife.

see paragraphs 5-7:
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/1157519.html

His ex-wife had been a member of the church in the past, and had received an order of protection against him before their divorce.

The misogony spewing from Rush et al couldn't have helped things, huh?

As a UU I also have been deeply saddened by this, and am keeping the Knoxville congregation in my thoughts/prayers.

Michele

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When hate speech like that practiced by
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettyn on Jul 29, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rupert Murdoch's crew reaches the ears of disturbed individuals like this man, it can become lethal. In fact, I am surprised that we haven't had more incidents like this, considering the venom some of these rightwing nuts spew incessantly. The UU's are perhaps one of two (Quakers being the other) religious organizations I can tolerate. A very sad thing indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bartleby
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bartleby1701 on Jul 29, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an observer of the rise of the right for years now, often torturing myself by listening to talk radio, etc., this does not surprise me one bit. I mean not at all. Like many of you, I'm just surprised it took this long. I've been predicting it for a long time - in fact, as soon as I heard the first reports on this one - when I saw it was a UU church - I called it. Unfortunately I was right. We all talk about the obvious guys - the Hannity's, the Savages, the Limbaugh's, etc... But if you listen to talk radio really late at night, you here the true crazies. Levin is particularly bad. And that's not to mention the local versions of these guys that aren't nationally syndicated.
Anyway... I think this guy should now receive what he most desires. NO liberal rights of the accused for him! No trial! No counsel! No appeal! No ban on cruel and unusual punishment! In fact...they should hang him at noon! After torturing him.
I'm kidding of course, but how much you wanna bet he starts yammering about his "rights" (secured by liberals both past and present) pretty soon.
Another prediction: he becomes a martyr to the cause. He will be celebrated by the right. Not the most visible ones. They'll have to play the game. But you watch what happens with him in the darker places of the right wing.
Oh...and another prediction: some wingnut somewhere will blame this on liberalism. Just watch. It'll happen.

Great article. I'm tired of wimpy liberals refusing to see this for what it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bartleby; thanks Posted by: Beck
» RE: Bartleby Posted by: helenwheels
"Study your enemy closely, for you will soon be like him"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Jul 29, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Attributing the horrific events in a Tennessee church to the influence of right-wing radio and television programing is suspiciously akin to attributing campus shootings and gang violence to "goth" and "gangsta rap" ... and maybe to The Catcher in the Rye.

Such pop culture factors may be, in some sense, the immediate cause or (pardon the pun) the "triggers" that set off individual killers; they are not, however, the root cause.

The blame (and therefore the solution) for dramatic episodes lies in the larger culture, the social policies and the dominant ideology of the United States - all, of course, encouraged by the beneficiaries of the political economy of "disaster capitalism."

The US incarcerates 723 out of every 100,000 of its citizens - not counting juveniles. England has 141, Australia 120, Canada 107, Germany 98, Italy 96, France 91, Sweden 81, Denmark 70 and Norway 65 - including juveniles.

Are these countries "soft on crime"? No, they have less of it. The Tennessee shooter is not just a product of hateful and hate-filled FOX News personalities, but is an example of what happens at the fringe of a violent culture.

Free speech exemplifies what is best in America.

Oppression, suppression and repression - whether economic, social or political - are no more solutions to the problem as viewed from the left than are efforts to ban books (Karl Marx or July Blume), music (Elvis or Eminem) and political diatribes (Tom Paine or Rev. Wright) by the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bartleby
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bartleby1701 on Jul 29, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh...and one other thing. You wanna get a take on the true feelings of the right wing followers that the Hannity's et al can not acknowledge? Go to liveleak dot com...search Tennessee shooting. And then, if your stomach can take it, read the comments section. You will be amazed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bartleby Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Bartleby Posted by: Lauren
The only thing shocking...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jul 29, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...would have been if a liberal attacked a conservative church. The only haters out there that love their guns, love their gods (Jesus), love to kill in His name, are conservatives... Shrub-likes.

They are all pro-life to promote their agendas (who could be pro-death) but always support the means to kill and killing after their pro-life baby is born.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has this been 75 years ago...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CanuckKid on Jul 29, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and the setting had been the Weimar Republic, this nutbar would have found a good home in the SS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In a way, he already does, Posted by: CanuckKid
This guy was mentally ill
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bastet62 on Jul 29, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And probably has had many episodes throughout his life that should have been a sign that he needed mental health care, but because we have such poor quality of mental health care and because of the social stigma mental illness carries in this country, this man didn't get any intervention or help.

Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc also all have some sort of mental illness though I'm not sure what it is. Their hate-speak, while reprehensible, is not responsible for this guy's mental illness. What's reprehensible is that so many Americans agree w/these idiots.

The fact is that these shock jocks are able to do so well is because there is an audience large enough that agrees with what they say and buys their books, products etc and listens to their shows. This portion of Americans have not yet evolved beyond their barbaric cave man roots, and although they are, thankfully, a minority, they still wield too much voting and buying power in this country.

The public education system has effectively kept many Americans ignorant of their own history and has kept alive this nostalgic false dream of what America is and has done -keeping these people happy with the status quo and worshiping a country that never existed - BUT THIS COULD be remedied if people educated themselves and others enough to evolve beyond hatred, war, divisions, and class wars and started to work to make this country a real beacon of light for the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This guy was mentally ill Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: This guy was mentally ill Posted by: Bastet62
» One would think... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: This guy was mentally ill Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: This guy was mentally ill Posted by: rainingwolf
This is domestic terrorism and I want this guy declared an enemy combatant
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Jul 29, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..and thrown into Gitmo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't you know anything???? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Their World Is Falling Apart
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Denver Dem on Jul 29, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things were supposed to become so much better for them with Bush and the Republicans in power. Obviously, that didn't happen. We can expect to see more of this in the months and years ahead as the modern conservative movement, spawned in the 60s, takes its last gasps and its myriad "dittohead" followers come to terms with the realization that they're never going to be raptured into wealthy white man heaven with their GOP overlords.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Their World Is Falling Apart Posted by: helenwheels
Just another frustrated American male
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wildbill on Jul 29, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Unitarian-Universalist from another part of the country, and this story has deeply saddened and disturbed me and other members of my church. BUT...in the end, this guy was just another America white male loner who had a run of bad luck, no support mechanism, and chose to blame it on one group that had nothing to do with it.

In the last 15 months there have been church shootings in a Presbyterian church, a Congregational church, and an independent "megachurch" and its affiliated missionary school. In recent years there have been shootings at a Baptist church, a Jewish school, and others, plus a Jewish American who shot up a mosque in the Palestinian town of Hebron.

There have also been shootings by "disgruntled males" in public schools, universities, court houses, post offices, shopping malls, law offices, etc., etc. This is not a conservative vs. liberal problem, a political problem or a religious problem, it is a problem of alienation in American society and the popularly promoted view (see "The Dark Knight")that guns and physical violence are the answer to these problems.

Even if you shut down the voices of hatred and extremism in the media, you would still have angry people trying to solve their problems, or at least "get even," with guns. Even if you outlawed guns, which is not something I support, these people would still find an outlet for their anger. And the frustration, alienation, anger, resentment and subsequent violence in American society constitute a problem for which I have no easy answer.

And that is as Unitarian-Universalist an opinion as I can give.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another answer is to ... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» Buy a gun Posted by: leafsong1
tirebiter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tirebiter on Jul 29, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To all the "people" such as hannity etc. could you tell us all what it's like to be an accessory to murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tirebiter Posted by: helenwheels
Hannity and Savage responsible for killings
[Report this comment]
Posted by: john2007 on Jul 29, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on whether radio hate-jocks cause violence is over. The question now is what does society do about it? How do we respond to the loathsome pigs like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who are responsible for inflaming the brains of our weakest links? How do we explain to our grand kids that church is where you go to get murdered by right-wing psychopaths? How do we confront the fact that this evil zeitgeist has been developing for fifty years and has been funded by what we now call disaster capitalism.

If Hannity and Savage had any decency they would be on their knees begging for forgiveness; but they don't and they won't. And you know that Dick Cheney is smirking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comprehending hatred in this country...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jul 29, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... theirs always been someone somewhere to hate!

the largest human bloodbath of the 19th century was fought over it...
the largest human death toll in known times happened in the 20th century because of it!
and there is still people with enough hate in them to see it last a few more times
before we finally get it!

call it what you want...
racism, nationalism, communism ...republicanism...
they all seem to end in a "ISM" are politically motivated and is about the "hatred" of something,
its the glue that's become the Raison d'être!

time to recognize it for what it is... hate!
and long past time to legislate an end to it... hate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not surprising
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Parcival01 on Jul 29, 2008 6:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naw, I'm not surprised. In fact, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. Listen to what the "shock jocks" say. Coulter is, as I've described, the Ku Klux Klan with finesse; David Horowitz argues that people with leftist tendencies should be effectively censored. And it gets worse!

Will this wake anyone up? No.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not surprising Posted by: jwverez
Where Is The FCC
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nevervotesrepublican on Jul 29, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is high time that something should be done about the shock-jock hatemongering right wing sycophants. Rush is trying to create a riot in Denver at the Democratic Convention. Libuuurals are horrible people that hate America.

The FCC is worried about T&A and ignores the propagandist that create rage and hate, that spawns acts of barbarism on innocent people.

It is time for the media to pressure the FCC to clean up the never ending hate that is spewed upon the public by these right wing fanatics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where Is The FCC Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: Where Is The FCC Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Where Is The FCC Posted by: jmp3954
Mental Illness
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mclame on Jul 30, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If any of you has lived long enough, you will remember that it prez Ronald Reagan that cut all the funding for Mental Health Facilitys and other programs to help the mentally ill. Thanks to him, these nuts are given Rx's for a few pills and put out on the streets. Those that commit henious crimes are thrown into jail and drugged. When their time is up they go back onto the streets to prey again. Believe me I know first hand. I was in the mental health field in the 70-80's intil 1000's of mental health professionals lost their jobs due to lack of funding. I went to work as a counseler in the Colo.Dept. of Corrections. All we could do to help the people with mental problems was make reports and send them to the infirmary to get more pills to help them cope. Countless numbers of inmates belonged in mental institutions, but there were only a few left, and those usually only kept a person for a short time intil they responded to medication. If we had a decent mental health program in this country, many of these subjects would be diagnosed and locked up before they were able to go out and slaughter innocent people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mental Illness Posted by: helenwheels
Unfortunately, the gun toters and the rightwing ditto ZOMBIES need serious brain treatment.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jwverez on Jul 30, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, it's gonna be tough pulling them away from their guns and fastfood rightwing bullshit media but this country has no choice if it's going to survive at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The success of the Right points to failure of the Left?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 30, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I posted this on a previous article, but wanted to repost in this one also.

"I find myself asking the question: does the surge of right-wing and far right feelings in this country reflect a success of people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Or is is possibly a failure of Progressives to provide a viable alternative? Obviously this guy was deeply unbalanced, but are all of the millions who tune in to Fox and Limbaugh and visit sites like FreeRepublic unbalanced also?

Too often I have heard and read (including Alternet posts) Progressives dismissing people in the midwest and south as boors and hicks or "they're just not smart". Well they may be "hicks" but they are definitely not all stupid! I live in the rural midwest (Nebraska) and I don't see how the angry and desperate young men out here could possibly resonate with the advice that Progressives have for them: "you shouldn't shop at Walmart...you defnitely need to get rid of your guns...you need to welcome illegal immigrants and share your jobs and schools with them...what? You don't want to? Obviously you are a racist pig!...you need to eat vegetarian, you cruel animal hater..."

I am also wondering what are the reasons that millions tune-into the right-wing hate message now. What are the forces at work that are moving people in this direction in this country right now? We need to find out, because the dismissive attitudes of too many on the Progressive/liberal side remind me of what the "good Germans" must have thought/said in the early 1930's when faced with the rise of Nazism. And in hindsight they did so at their own peril."

Now when I posted this on the previous article on Alternet about this tragedy, the first post in reply, in the first few words, called my state and region "dysfunctional" and went on from there. Now let me say that I am a Progressive, and that in my small town 27% of the people have at least a BA degree (in reply to those posters who often imply that rural people in Nebraska are uneducated).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sir thank you for your comment Posted by: zooeyhall
time to put out the fire of hate speech
[Report this comment]
Posted by: old prof on Jul 30, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
letter to the editor of the Knoxville newspaper....

Editor,
When we ask why someone would go into a church and shoot innocent people, we have to look at those who fan the flames of hatred in the right-wing media. Among the items seized from the shooter's house were three books: "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity.

Back in 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in a Supreme Court decision that " The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."

The right of free speech does not protect reckless or malicious speech that leads to injury and death. Today's right-wing commentators are shouting "fire" every day on the public airwaves and sadly, as we have seen in Knoxville, innocent people are dying. It's time to put out the fire of hate speech and demand responsible behavior from broadcasters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you DO realize... Posted by: lexicon
Too much hate, too little compassion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wab on Jul 30, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see too much hate in here and too little compassion.

I see your ideological opponents called all sorts of hateful names in here and all sorts of hateful rhetoric being thrown about.

Where is the praise for the bible-thumping men of that church who subdued this man and saved lives? Where is your explicit compassion for the individuals and victims of this isolated incident?

No, many of you are too busy trying to score political points. I'm disappointed.

May the Lord of the congregation of this church give them peace and comfort in the aftermath of this tragic and isolated incident. They believe in Jesus and I hope that they find genuine comfort in the Lord.

May justice be swift and sure for the accused gunman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too much hate, too little compassion Posted by: outsideagitator
The Fear Factor
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jul 30, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A prevalent phenomenon that has recently been pointed out on sites like Alternet is that those in power, like the Republicans and neo-cons, and those who are in the majority, like Christians in America, often seem to see themselves as an oppressed, victimized minority.

Anyone who believes that liberals run this country needs a whole network of proctologists to find his or her head. But apparently, this mindset is not necessarily unique. For example, I've talked to any number of Christians who claim to be in the minority because other people "are not really Christians, even though they go to church on Sunday."

So I've been thinking about this and the reasons for the odd self-image.

One explanation might be that those in power simply use reverse psychology to keep people from knowing who's really in control. But I've had so many experiences with Christians and rightwing ideologues who seem to sincerely believe they are in the minority, I believe something else is going on.

Could it be that people who quest for power, along with those who need certainty concerning the nature of life, proceed from a base of fear? It seems as if the need for wealth, power, and control comes from a feeling of helplessness. True Believers want answers because they can't stand not knowing what will happen when they die. They need to be sure of the purpose of this existence, what's coming and that they will be among the chosen ones.

People who spend their lives trying to gain more and more and more control are terrified that something, somewhere might happen that they are not prepared for. Money, after it provides security and a certain level of luxury, is no longer about the money itself; it's about more power.

So, is it possible that radical rightwingnuts (how can we keep calling them "conservatives"?) actually believe they are oppressed because anything less than total control over everyone, everywhere in the world still leaves them with the feeling of helplessness or weakness?

Is it also possible that hardcore if-you-don't-believe-what-I-believe religious adherents need everyone to come into the fold because any heretics at all, even one single person, will detract from the veracity of their dogma?

Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Fear Factor Posted by: Lauren
» Really! Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: eally! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: The Fear Factor Posted by: TheLimit
Comparison to Rwanda
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Theodore on Jul 30, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The closing comparison to Rwanda is apt. If you have not read the analysis of that situation given in Jared Diamond's Collapse, do so. Much of the US is under increasing population and economic pressures not unlike (although not yet nearly as severe) as those in Rwanda prior to the genocide. When desperate people are offered an easy justification for acting on their basest instincts, this can happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Comparison to Rwanda Posted by: helenwheels
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 30, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How quick we are to forget....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kitty1967 on Jul 30, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Ozzy Osbourne caused those kids to commit suicide. And video games cause kids to become violent. And.....

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. I don't care for the likes of O'Reilly or Hannity or any of those guys, but to say that it was their fault is just ludicrous. What happened to freedom of speech? They are just as free to spout off about us liberal cockroaches as we are to spout off about them being narrow-minded right-wing conservatives.

It's what others choose to do with that information that is at question here, and to say that Bill O'Reilly responsible for causing someone to open fire in a church is just as crazy as saying that Ozzy caused someone to kill themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How quick we are to forget.... Posted by: helenwheels
Fascism, not 'Conservativism'
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shinseiji on Jul 30, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing conservative about far right hate radio. The Bush years proved that they appeal to at least 20% of the U.S. population, a solid base for a American fascist movement. They need to be confronted, right in their face, pure and simple.

The approach is not to advocate their silencing. Remember, a section of big capital is paying for their services, and will never be "shamed" into taking them off the air no matter how many massacres and acts of fascist terror they perpetrate. That is because they are in ideological agreement - these aren't just weak-minded ignorant yahoos we are dealing with here.

The approach should be similiar to the reaction of the autism folks to Savage - call them out in public.

Challenge these cowards to stop hiding in their broadcast rooms and come out and face us in honest debate. Get them to the point where they are reduced on air to raving foam at the mouth Hitler style 'carpet eaters' 24x7.

Don't suppress speech - widen it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fascism, not 'Conservativism' Posted by: outsideagitator
A sad day in the neighborhood
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Jul 30, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conservative media mouths tactics are simple; they throw out enough garbage and hope something rings a bell with someone, who is looking to for an excuse or reason to justify their actions. Unfortunately there are a lot of cracked bells running around. In the end the media mouths are just entertainers they are court jesters and like Obama they can draw crowds. They have been riding high the last few years. Hopefully Obama will get elected, if he can not change anything he will at least change the conversation. The day of the label will end, you will be known by your works and not your label. The day will come when wrapping yourself in American body bags and calling yourself a patriot, will not work anymore. On that day there will be a lot of foxes looking for the hen house. What will Hannity’s world become if we actually elected Obama president? That thought has to be scaring a lot of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A sad day in the neighborhood Posted by: helenwheels
Why are shock jocks who incite violence not considered terrorists?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 30, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to wonder why calling for the death of someone is not a serious terrorism tactic? Why are shock jocks allowed to threaten peoples' lives on the air and not get arrested? If I threatened someone's life, I'd get tossed in the clink.

The FBI has a list of suspected terrorist groups, but many on there are animal rights or human rights activists, or people who try to do good. But I don't see the FBI hauling off Coulter for threatening to kill a judge. I don't see them arresting Bill "Falafel" O'Lielly for suggesting Michelle Obama be lynched.

I ask this rhetorically because I know the answer.

It is in the corporate-owned gov't's best interest to catapult the propaganda, as the shrub put it. To repeat it until we believe it. And that's what they want people to believe, that liberalism is evil and that liberal (i.e., "independent") thought is a crime.

Eventually (or has the time arrived?), liberalism will be worth being killed for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: dmwsd92
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Yeah, EncinoM? Like who? Posted by: Quannah
What goes around--
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pursah on Jul 30, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under the anti-terrroism laws the right-wing Bush has put in place, a new liberal president, when he takes office, can shut down Fox News, Ann Coulter, and all the rest of their radio, TV, and print attack machine as TERRORISTS. After all, their rhetoric obviously incites people to do domestic violence. All of ones weapons can always be used against you. All swords are double-edged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What goes around-- Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: What goes around-- Posted by: TheLimit
Nothing logical about this tragedy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: besmirched on Jul 30, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When police searched the car of the gunman who opened fire in a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, they found a 4-page letter expressing his hatred of the "liberal movement." A regular consumer of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, Jim David Adkisson was only following the arguments they make day in and day out to their logical conclusions.

A logical conclusion?.......I rather doubt it. Not once have I ever heard any of these men attempt to persuade a conservative listener to take up arms to kill liberals. And anyone who attempts to portray these individuals as provoking people to do so is out of touch with reality and looking for any means necessary to squelch any opposition to their agenda, which is to reinstate the fairness doctrine, and take away the constitutional right to bear arms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

redneck idiot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Jul 30, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy in many respects is a typical redneck idiot.

They don't really know what it means to be liberal. They don't really know much of anything but they sure think they do. They listen to Fox and the right wing nuts and they buy it all.

When progressives dismiss the likes of Hannity, O'Reily, etc. they are grossly underestimating the number of people who listen and believe everything those jerks say.

When I first heard conservative talk radio when it became popular back in the 80's, I thought, who would listen to this crap? well, I was dumb back then, there's TONS of people who listen all the time and think they are getting a great education. If you tried to reason with them with facts, you would get no where.

I live in Tennessee and know lots of rednecks. They are not as funny as Mr. Foxworthy makes them out to be. They will shoot you dead and not blink.

VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Got news for you Posted by: robbie.seal
Options
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Xynyx on Jul 30, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May I suggest a civil liability lawsuit? It seems to me that a reasonable person would conclude that the hatred proclaimed in such books might easily lead an unstable person, such as Adkisson, to commit such acts of violence. A jury could easily find that the authors and publishers of these books can be held liable for the damages, which I suggest should total in the tens of millions or more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Options Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Options Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Options Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Options Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Options Posted by: dmwsd92
» RE: Options Posted by: Lauren
why is hate radio effective?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lexicon on Jul 30, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The phenomenon of hate radio is almost too bizarre to imagine, but imagine it we must.

How is it popular? Even a cursory examination of the ideology of a Hannity or Savage or Limbaugh reveals it's hypocrisy, it's shallowness, it's inconsistency...it's WRONGNESS. But, it is still popular! People who seem to otherwise function in society actually tune in to it.

There MUST be something else going on.

I'm sure it's the fodder for many detailed studies, but in a general sense, what is the primary characteristic of the listenership? I think it's that they are, down to a one, PERSONALLY DISEMPOWERED. They are, in some way or other, fundamentally not able to control their own destiny. They....are....helpless.

However, if you were to actually ASK any one of them, about their personal empowerment, they'd tell you you're full of shit. "I'm a self-employed carpenter! I've got a truck and all these tools! I set my own hours, do the work I want to do! I set my own destiny!"

But lurking under the surface, is a man who is terribly afraid. He has to rely on 2 or 3 main customers, each of which squeezes him in one way or another. Fuel costs are killing him. Building codes and inspections and the spectre of immigrants swinging hammers and putting him out of work are things HE CAN'T CONTROL.

So, along comes Limbaugh...and what does he offer?

He offers the sense that HE UNDERSTANDS "MY" PLIGHT. He stands shoulder-to-shoulder with "me". He gets "my" needs.

Once he has that trust...its all gravy from there. Limbaugh can then substitute any "demon" from his bag of tricks, to be the blame for "my" victimhood.

In this way, all these ideas get insinuated into "my" belief system. Its terrifying, actually, to listen to a true Limbaugh listener speak...It's like listening to a tape recorder.

So, Limbaugh's message resonates, because it doesn't bother to go to the rational, thinking centers of "my" brain...it goes direct to the fear/doubt/uncertainty centers. Limbaugh and his ilk have learned how to target their messages, in the tradition of the classical propagandists...don't aim your attack at the GOOD arm...aim your attack at the EXISTING WOUND.

If I encounter someone that actually listens to Savage, I ask him/her "why". Invariably, the answer is NOT "Because I'm a right-wing idealogue"...it's ALWAYS "I dunno...I just like to listen. It's entertaining". What THAT means, is that he (Limbaugh) successfully creates an IDENTITY confluence with that particular listener.

One other thing.

Someone like this most recent shooter, is clearly a person with mental illness. They're only just barely in this reality with the rest of us, hanging on by a thread. It takes very little to 'cut' that thread, and throw them off their moorings into some extreme act.

The current broadcast landscape is such that, someone like you or I, can avoid Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Savage, and the 500 just like them...but we have to TRY to avoid them. If you just turn on the dial in that area of the country, it is NOT the case that you have to wade through a whole bunch of "Pacifica" type radio stations to fine some good ol' fashioned hate talk radio...quite the opposite. They're like frogs on the road after a summer rainstorm...you almost can't avoid them.

The problem then becomes, not Lunatic Limbaugh...but the fact that his "brand" of ideology message is PERVASIVE.

Now...what does that portend for progressive counter-messaging on the radio dial? It HAS to mean a host/personality that can duplicate the PEER RELATIONSHIP bonding ability. To the Limbaugh listener, Rush is sneering constantly, but he's sneering at THE OTHER. Never, NEVER at "me".

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is EXACTLY what Hitler did Posted by: zooeyhall
To Hell with the Equal Time
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JayHaden on Jul 30, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing media do need our FCC to provide proper labeling, if not control. "This is an advertisement" appears at the top of newspaper and magazine ads that could be confused with real news content. Fox is like one of those adverts -- plunked down in the middle of the broadcast spectrum, designed to look like a news outlet. Rush and others are designed to look like Eric Severeid or even Paul Harvey, plunked down in the middle of an AM program listing, offer a "balancing interpretation" of the news.

I suppose it is their right to spout demagoguery because of their First Amendment rights. But wasn't it Justice Holmes that said even the First Amendment has its limits, as when shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater? If the First Amendment turns out to be the Achilles Heel of our democracy, let's find ways to educate our citizens on the how they are being blinkered by their own lack of information and hoodwinked by the snake oil salesmen. Let's demand that the FCC require adherence to a truth in advertising doctrine. To hell with equal time. Hateful talk shows are a form of advertising, using the same old tricks that the marketing boys have found to be so useful in getting us to buy crap that's bad for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oversimplified cause-and-effect always confuses the issue
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mclemens on Jul 30, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Calls for book-burning and censorship are a dangerous reaction whether they arise from the left or the right. The opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes is worth citing: “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

At the same time, it has to be remembered that statements advocating eradication of a group of people have repeatedly been found to lie outside the limits of protected speech. Perhaps the most instructive example is that of publisher and journalist Julius Streicher. While he probably never did physical harm to a Jewish person himself, Streicher's violent advocacy of anti-Semitism in books and journals like Die Stürmer in Germany earned him execution by the Nuremburg Court for crimes against humanity.

The important point is that actions almost always develop from multiple contributing factors. In virtually every case, a person’s stated motivation is influenced both by prevailing conditions in the environment and unconscious factors in the individual. So asserting that causation lies with one of any number of given contributory elements is really just confusing things by oversimplifying. To paraphrase David Hume on cause-and-effect thinking: you can show me an effect without showing me a cause, but you can’t show me a cause without showing me its effects. So if all we can experience are effects, how can we ascribe causation to any one thing at all?

This is not to say that there isn’t damned good reason to think about conditions and circumstances that are conducive to violence. Violent hetero pornography, for example, in and of itself may not cause male-on-female rape, but a social climate where women are ubiquitously treated as dehumanized objects for male sexual delectation in conjunction with prolonged exposure to violent erotica is certainly going to make it more likely that some men in such an environment will sexually aggress against women. As McKinney and Dworkin pointed out in their Minnesota Initiative, if some S&M porn that highlights men violently aggressing against women instead depicted, say, whites violently aggressing against blacks, its status as hate speech would be self evident.

From this perspective, posters here who have cited the 1987 abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine have it exactly right. Along with the increasing consolidation of media, the result has been extremist voices for crypto-fascism reaching millions over Fox and Clear Channel, while opposing viewpoints are relegated to the equivalent of a cardboard megaphone and a soapbox on a remote corner of Bughouse Square. Unbalanced people are simply more likely to be affected by right-wing extremism because they’re statistically more likely to hear it.

Ad we have to bear in mind that most successful progressive agitation has always been about individual people connecting with each other face-to-face. Check into the history of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and its relationship to the New Left and later 60’s activism for a helpful model which, given the internet, could have wide-ranging applicability today.

After all, no matter how big a transmitter we on the left could get to counter the ravings of a Hannity or a Limbaugh, who on earth could we find to provide a balanced opposing viewpoint—an unreconstructed Stalinist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murder and violence as Conservative values..? Apparently so..!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJColatrella on Jul 30, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes they did and have Michael Reagan offered to buy the bullets to kill anti war protesters..!

If Obama is elected we may see a rash of these Conservative murderers..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For that matter. RWers may have encouraged the 9/11 attacks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: smendler on Jul 30, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Q. Why did Bin Laden think he could get away with attacking America?

A. Because he thought America's military - and America's spirit - had been weakened.

Q. Was that in fact the case?

A. Obviously not, as US armed forces & their allies were able to remove the Taliban from power fairly quickly.

Q. So how would Bin Laden have gotten that impression?

A. There must have been some group of people spreading that impression in the media during the Clinton years.

Q. Who could that have been?

A. Right-wing politicians, pundits, and radio talkshow hosts, who spent a lot of time attacking Clinton's military policies, and who also strongly resisted US involvement in the Bosnian wars.

Q. So you're saying that Rush Limbaugh caused 9/11?

A. I'm saying that rightwingers may have created an impression of American weakness, and that may have facilitated Bin Laden's decision to attack.

Q. They're not going to like that suggestion.

A. [deleted] them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Stop following me around the forums Posted by: Illiteratilumen
None Dare Call it Fascism -- But I Do
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Jul 30, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland was practicing the art of understatement when he wrote in his article, "Conservatism gave way to "backlash" conservatism, which is, in practice, little more than an ideology of resentment."

Neither Holland nor anyone else, it seems, is willing to call this "ideology of resentment" what it really is.

Allow me to spell it out for you: F-A-S-C-I-S-M.

Fascism's raison d'etre is the politics of resentment. The politics of blaming others fo ryour own faults. The politics of always finding a scapegoat. The politics of formenting resentment at best and outright hatred at worst toward certain individuals or gorups of individuals you dislike.

Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy on the politics of resentment. Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany on the politics of resentment. Slobodan Milosevic came to power in Serbia on the politics of resentment.

Fascists all. Yet, for some strange reason, nobody had the courage to call Milosevic the fascist that he really was -- apparently blinded by the fact that he led Serbia's Socialist Party.

By this definition, we Americans have a neo-fascist government in power in Washington, D.C., built upon the politics of resentment.

None dare call George W. Bush and Dick Cheney neo-fascists. Even left-wing radio talk show host Mike Milloy doesn't call them neo-fascists, instead calling their regime the "Bush Crime Family."

But I so dare -- and I'm getting sick and tired of being the only one who calls the Bush-Cheney regime a neo-fascist regime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: helen... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: helen... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: helen... Posted by: Quannah
» I would like to read your blog Posted by: Ethical1
» RE: I would like to read your blog Posted by: helenwheels
» Love your site. Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Love your site. Posted by: helenwheels
rw radio and 9/11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: smendler on Jul 30, 2008 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Q. Why did Bin Laden think he could get away with attacking America?

A. Because he thought America's military - and America's spirit - had been weakened.

Q. Was that in fact the case?

A. Obviously not, as US armed forces & their allies were able to remove the Taliban from power fairly quickly.

Q. So how would Bin Laden have gotten that impression?

A. There must have been some group of people spreading that impression in the media during the Clinton years.

Q. Who could that have been?

A. Right-wing politicians, pundits, and radio talkshow hosts, who spent a lot of time attacking Clinton's military policies, and who also strongly resisted US involvement in the Bosnian wars.

Q. Therefore...?

A. Work it out for yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rw radio and 9/11 Posted by: smendler
Pity us all
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 30, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The many studies of consequences of pornography have demonstrated that it only has measurable results in accord with individual predispositions. Likewise, the shock jocks are motivators only for those who are already convinced.

To blame them in this instance is to give them credit far beyond what is due. As the saying goes, that gives them far more power than they have.

The shock jocks have about as much influence as the Nazi march through Knoxville recently where street clowns so ridiculed them that the Nazis had to resort to their customary feints of violence.

As the news stories indicate, it is no surprise that UUs with some regularity support the ACLU. Freedom of speech is more sacred than all the sound and fury, no matter whether it comes from shock jocks or those who want an easy answer.

Clearly not all Americans believe all should enjoy equal rights. The right wingnuts want to be more equal than others. The option to murder those less equal follows. It is our American tragedy that the total unsoundness of such a view is not evident to us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This paragraph -
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mainspark on Jul 30, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Of course, when one points this out one is immediately derided as an enemy of free speech, even if one never even suggests that this kind of speech should be regulated in any way. The hate-peddlers use "free speech" as a shield from criticism, as if it means the freedom to not have one's speech examined or condemned."

...says it all.

Well done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Right
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Right on Jul 30, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beings I can not disagree with the position of the Author and those who responded (per Alternet will not tolerate) I guess I should just say "God Loves You".

That must be why I get so depressed about our country and government every time I read anything on this website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, we know God loves us Posted by: Beached Whale
Adkisson's actions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jackyD on Jul 30, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
merely reflect the venal impotence of the hatred and anger he feels towards himself. He projects all that self-loathing onto others that he deems to be a threat. He is his own worst enemy. Adkisson, Savage, Hannity et al are birds of a feather. If these guys somehow managed to get rid of anyone who was not exactly like themselves, no doubt they would turn on each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Adkisson's actions Posted by: dmwsd92
My first ever removed comment!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jul 30, 2008 7:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I guess my little parody of an Alternet staff meeting didn't go over so well with the Alternet staff.

I'm curious why it was removed. I'm looking at the "Alternet will not tolerate" list right now. There was no excessive profanity. There were no racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language. The comment was not off-topic or irrelevant to the story or discussion at hand.

I suppose it could have been interpreted as a personal attack on your writer (whose work I normally enjoy) but I would think that any reasonable person would interpret it as a parody.

Indeed Mr. Holland illustrated some great points in his article. I particularly liked how he articulated that freedom of speech is not a shield from criticism. What I don't like is how eager Alternet is to take this tragedy and and spin it into yet another polarizing left vs. right issue before all the facts are in. The Dolan article was particularly disturbing to me. I see Mr. Holland's article as no different than the people who blamed Marilyn Manson for the Columbine massacre.

I think its fine that you guys are critical of right-wing radio. There is plenty to be critical about. I don't agree with your proposed solutions but that is another matter.

The bottom line is that these people are whack-jobs that fixate on all manner of things to channel their frustrations. This guy picked some unfortunate people at a universalist church. Now, according to Alternet, it is not a sociopathic crime but a violent clash of ideologies spurred on by Rush Limbaugh.

But hey, you guys are getting the site hits so why worry about fanning a few flames, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My first ever removed comment! Posted by: BlueGorilla
» Can I offer you some more commas? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
One fool amongst many..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Jul 30, 2008 9:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly the man was disturbed anyway,and was attracted to hate mongers,because they validated his own distorted thinking..
However without the vile propaganda of O'Reilly et al,this man could have had a chance of gaining a little balance.Instead his initial hate was compounded.
Furthermore,it isn't just what the jocks say (ie the ideas),it is how they say it,in personal and aggressive tones.They stir the emotions of the ignorant,banging the drum for prejudice.
The inconsistencies in his thinking are very striking,ie if he was a conservative ,why attack a family event with children innocently performing?Then again conservativism has become a collection of prejudices,lacking real ideological coherency.Hate for foreigners,gays,liberals,single mothers, different religions etc are the central essence of modern conservatives.
A stated belief in small state politics is undermined by real examples of conservatives in government.. ie the next president will inherit a huge budget deficit,and state spending which benefits the wealthy has mushroomed.
The jocks are too thick and ignorant, to feel any sense of responsibility over this.No doubt they will blame the liberals.
In a country where the media is skewered to the right,they see each liberal voice as a sure sign of conspiracy.This is the distorted thinking of a bully..the type who sees any miniscule advance of their perceived foe/rival, as an undermining of their own worth.. equity is a threat to those with such clear mental distortions.
Jocks are bullies,this murderer was a bully,cut from the same cloth as the jock ..he just lost that little bit of restraint.This self control only just keeps O'Reilly, from harming someone who disagrees with him.
He has been close to getting physical on air,on several occasions (ie when interviewing the young man whose dad had died in 9/11 and who was voicing his opposition to the Bush war fiasco's).
Last point here,if it wasn't so easy to get hold of a gun,the man would have done a lot less damage..but so many leftwing measures would have beneffitted the poor fool.Like a fair distribution of wealth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The self-righteous and ungrateful would usually show their anger at the polls
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dmwsd92 on Jul 30, 2008 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The killer used his gun to do the disenfranchisement in the most gruesome way possible. How low does our country have to sink?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Examine destructive Conservarive Personality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zootlux on Jul 31, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have interviewed hundreds of jailed offenders for the local Courts. It became obvious that there are serious counterproductive aspects within the average conservative personality. We see these flaws every day with Bush, Fox News talking heads and other rabid conservatives. For a really good clinical description of the "Mean & Greedies" negative core beliefs .... follow me ....

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/95/950725C.HTM

Zootlux

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals! what Liberals?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Forrest on Jul 31, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are no Liberals in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the big mouths
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tirebiter on Jul 31, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they, hannity, savage, o'reilly, et all, are, in effect, accessories to murder. do you have a reason why not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the big mouths Posted by: BlueGorilla
I thought it was Heath Ledger aka The Joker?"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 6399 on Jul 31, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Did Right-Wing Shock Jocks Motivate Knoxville Killer?"

You're F'ing kidding, right? He's not just a freaking loon. Oh no - gotta be the shock jocks. Good lord have mercy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congratulations Rush!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dejeanco on Aug 2, 2008 4:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Rush on twenty years of excellence in broadcasting. I’ve been listing to your well thought out arguments against liberalism since 1994, and the best these people can offer is that you’re a shock jock, or retarded, or a Nazi. Just as you say on your show, they never debate the issues. Here’s to another twenty years of exposing the liberals for what they truly are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Exactly how long ago...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Quannah on Aug 3, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
did you fall and hit your head?

I'd be concerned about long-term damage if I were you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be Careful...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robbie.seal on Aug 3, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the same thread (or should I say "shread") of logic that conservatives used against rock, rap, video games and such. The guy was sick. Blame him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumb title, dumb oped.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: John1967 on Aug 3, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are dozens of influential Democrat leaders, not the least among them being Nancy Pelosi, trying to effect silence on the right.

That you find a nutcase with rightwing literature on his person is unimpressive. The relationship between American socialists (Democratic party) and National Socialists, resposible for the deaths of millions, is easilty demonstrable, as well as the SEC/PROG/ATHEISM movement with European and Asian Communism, responsible for the deaths of 100s of millions.

I don't recall any right wing groups suing to silence speach, but the pro-gay groups, as an example, you can't miss on a daily basis, suing not only against anti-gay speach, but wanting to rub every straight family's nose in the agenda.

'Noticed today tha we're actually infecting 50,000+ individuals with a terminal disease a year, instead of the "only 40,000" we used to think we did each year.

Wondering which side of the spectrum is more dangerous in light of the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dumb title, dumb oped. Posted by: AuntBec