Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • 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

O'Reilly Attacks Woman Who Connects Dots Between Hate Speech and Violence

Posted by Rory O'Connor, AlterNet at 3:36 PM on August 20, 2008.


Plus: read the article that got O'Reilly all worked up.
ncountdownworst061128.300w

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

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 


After Jenna Kern, a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, decided to

write an Op-Ed piece for Newsday questioning whether shock jocks and hate speech contributed to the recent murderous shooting spree in a U-U church in Tennessee, the haters started to come after her as well. The attacks started first in the comments section of Newsday. (”Hi Rory. Guess what?” Ms. Kern emailed. “Newsday has received 3,000 emails against my piece. The online forum comments at newsday.com have been 99% hateful… I actually had someone sitting in a car outside my house for a half hour. I got so freaked I called the cops!”)


The attacks then continued on the Newsbusters site — a project of the Media Research Center, “the leader in documenting, exposing

and neutralizing liberal media bias.” (Kern reports, “Wow, the blogs have gone crazy about the story I did. How did you handle all the nasty things! I don’t have the stomach for it, I’m afraid.”)


Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell sent a letter to Newsday Publisher Tim Knight demanding an apology for Kern’s opinion piece, and insisted that she “never again appear on the pages of Newsday,” stating that her article “was absolutely despicable ” and the newspaper “should be ashamed and embarrassed for having printed it…” since it was “nothing more than an in-print character assassination of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, a foray into absurd Leftist delusions of links between them and the vile murderer in a Tennessee church this past July 27.”


“This is not a freedom of speech issue,” Bozell concluded. “This is Newsday giving this woman a license to assault these fine men in print, accusing them of complicity in murder. Newsday should immediately publish a full retraction, and an abject and absolute apology to those defamed by this woman’s wretched words.”


Finally, Kern was confronted in her own driveway, as her most recent email explains:

(More plus the article that got O'Reilly all worked up after the flip)

“Bill O’Reilly’s people ambushed me in my driveway today. With camera and microphone. I guess I’ll be on the show tonight or tomorrow. This is not what I had wanted. Yikes. Wish me luck. I don’t feel bad about anything I said, but he’ll probably edit it to make me look like an idiot.”


But before Billo had a chance to air his ambush, his cable nemesis Keith Olbermann scooped him on it on his MSBNC program…and declared O’Reilly again to be the “Worst Person in the World.” I couldn’t agree more!


Here's Kern's op-ed which invoked the wrath of O'reilly:

On July 27 a man walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville and opened fire, killing two people and seriously wounding seven others.
As someone who has chosen Unitarian Universalism as her faith, I was shaken by the news. Unitarian Universalism congregations, like ours on Long Island, define themselves as a "liberal religious community" - not liberal in the political sense, but because we believe in open-minded discourse and welcome people of all persuasions.
How could such a community become the target of hate?
Police in Knoxville were quoted as saying that the man, later identified as Jim D. Adkisson, 58, 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 ... the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."
Someone who goes as far as shooting up a church is obviously mentally unbalanced. But where might Adkisson have come up with such ideas?
Might the shooter have heard talk-show host Rush Limbaugh say that "liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces" and "the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats" and that riots at the Democratic Convention would be "the best damn thing that can happen to this country."
Might the shooter have heard talk-show host Sean Hannity say in 2006, "There are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker."
Worth dying for? Adkisson did tell police he never expected to leave the church alive. Books found in his home included Hannity's "Let Freedom Ring," as well as "Liberalism Is a Mental Health Disorder" by Michael Savage, and "The O'Reilly Factor" by Bill O'Reilly - both outspoken right-wing talk show hosts.
Are these pundits entitled to their beliefs? Of course. And as a firm free-speech supporter, I can't advocate censoring them. But with the Tennessee murders fresh in mind, I can't help wondering: Did their anti-liberal rants help push Adkisson over the edge?
Many of their statements can make even a staunch First Amendment supporter cringe. Here are just a few examples:
Savage said that rather than "tak[ing] our side should there be some kind of catastrophic attack," Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy. ... They would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within."
O'Reilly has stated that "the far left in America is dominated by haters, people who despise their own country."
David Hudson, a scholar at The First Amendment Center, told me, "The First Amendment protects lots of offensive, repugnant speech." I'd say the above statements fit that description perfectly.
On his radio show, Hannity called the idea that Adkisson's reading list had any connection to the shooting "absurd," stating, "I am very proud of everything I wrote in 'Let Freedom Ring.'"
When I asked Rory O'Connor, author of a study of shock jocks and hate speech, for his take on the shootings, he replied, "Sure, these guys hold some responsibility for what happened, but we all hold responsibility - particularly anyone who hasn't stood up and spoken out against hate speech. We're all contributing to the climate where people are being dehumanized because of their beliefs."
Rev. William Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, is urging Unitarians to stick to our principles, the first of which is "the inherent worth and dignity of all people. ... This has been part of our mission since . . . abolitionism, continuing through women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, and our current advocacy on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons."
In other words, pretty much everything and everyone the talk show hosts find repugnant.
We'll never know for sure if Adkisson would have done the same thing had a different set of books been on his shelves. Crazy people can always find some inspiration for their actions, be it a book or a dog or a rock band.
My church is calling for members to "continue to stand on the side of love - even, and especially, during these complicated times."
That's the proper stance. But those of us who reject the rhetoric of extreme right pundits can still speak out and try to put pressure on the corporations that air their shows and the advertisers who sponsor them. Censorship, no. Exercising our free speech and spending our dollars in sync with our values, absolutely.

Digg!

Tagged as: bill o'reilly, keith olberman, jenna kern

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is now completing AlterNet’s first-ever book, which is on the subject of right-wing radio talkers like O’Reilly, and will be available early in 2008. O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.


House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
House Will Take Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
The House leadership bows to anti-choice congressmen, allowing them a vote on an anti-choice amendment to the health-care bill.
Post by RH Reality Check. November 7, 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:
Chris Hedges writes
Posted by: dayenta on Aug 20, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance coupled with passivity is a vice. I am a fellow UU. We need to keep speaking out. The bullying by these jerks just proves the point that they are fascists hiding behind the First Amendment to further their agenda of hate.

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

» RE: Chris Hedges writes Posted by: tnmntgrl
» Shame Posted by: grailsnail
I have begged my liberal friends
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Aug 20, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To listen to the savage Wiener (Michael Savage) for years. He calls liberals "scum," "vermin," "traitors," "Nazis."

If you believe his crap, killing liberals is as patriotic an action as one can commit. What do you do with vermin, anyway? You exterminate em, that's what.

Nazis? Jew or not, Savage/Wiener is the nearest thing to an outright Nazi in his philosophy and rabble-rousing we have ever had on our airwaves. By calling the kind of people he opposes Nazis, he is getting in front of the - completely accurate - charge that he is spouting Fascist propaganda.

His ignorant and historically challenged audience, many of whom lost ancestors defeating the Nazis in WWII and who would not accept Fascism labeled as such, eat his venom up.

Incitement to violence is a crime and not protected by the first amendment.

Listen to his program sometimes and judge for yourself.

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

» Well, let me be more honest. Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: I have begged my liberal friends Posted by: outsideagitator
» Wrong on the First Amendment Posted by: brunowe
» IN PLAIN ENGLISH Posted by: Deep
» RE: Buncha damned lies Posted by: UnEasyOne
» In Plainer English Posted by: EinMD
» RE: I have begged my liberal friends Posted by: ptoddchesser
little Weiner believes in free speech, as long as it’s conservative
Posted by: Harris20 on Aug 21, 2008 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michael Weiner “Savage” is reported to have kept a photograph of himself swimming naked with Allen Ginsberg. One day he must have decided to make up for having been a “flaming liberal” by becoming the perfect little Nazi.

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

It will only get worse
Posted by: jebpgh on Aug 21, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The shock jocks hate it when you quote them. And so do their followers. They prefer to pretend that it's all in your head. I thought the commentary was spot on and accurate - but the reaction to it has become all too predictable. We are in an early stage of culturally shifting toward a totalitarian society - and it will only get worse as the demographics of the country move away from the white majority. We are getting numb being terrorized by a vocal and crude minority. We ain't seen nothing yet.

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

» RE: It will only get worse Posted by: billslm
Best angle of attack
Posted by: hms2004 on Aug 21, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
against these 'shock jocks' is to go after the companies that sponsor their shows. The more we expose companies associated with these right wing fascists and promote boycotts the more effective we will be. If the advertisement is pulled from these shows they'll be off the air soon. That's the only thing that's keeping them on the air.

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

» RE: Best angle of attack Posted by: mercianomad
» RE: Best angle of attack Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Best angle of attack Posted by: Bambi
Terr'rists
Posted by: QQOblivion on Aug 21, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The WRONG-winger talkers are accomplices to TERR'RISM, plain and simple!

Why isn't the FBI investigating THEM, reading THEIR emails, listing to THEIR phone-calls, breaking into THEIR homes without a warrant and planting bugs?

Why must only we on the left be targets of the FBI's wrath? Hmmmm?

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

Guess O'LieLy forgot what he learned from Mike Stark's 'TurnAbout is FairPlay' visit...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Aug 21, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the LAST time someone AMBUSHED HIM IN HIS DRIVEWAY...


Judge calls police to shoo 'O'Reilly' crew

GEE, BILL, did you LIKE it when Mike Stark showed UP AT YOUR PLACE??

Where are the MIKE STARKS when you need 'em??
sauce for the goose, O'Liely... is sauce for the falafel...

┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
" ... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice... " ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

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

m.c.swof
Posted by: on Aug 21, 2008 1:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever became of the playground bullies who swaggered & scared us back in the dim smoke of our youth? Some grew up to be talk show hosts of the right-winged variety (tho there's not that much "variety")? Some got punched in the nose & chose another way to behave, as they grew up & became adults. Some opted, thru ambition & false/iffy credentials & bkgd., to become presidential candidates. One even became president. To ignore the fact that the influences of their constant bombardment ("bomb, bomb. bomb," et al.) of chatter, books, snide comments & simple hate cannot be denied. (I wish one of those guys would wander onto my driveway or shoulder their way into my privacy.) The point of this, sorry for going on & on, is simple: they are morons & bullies & those who listen and/or respond to their chantings are of no true account ... until they haul their weaponry & hate & death mantras into spaces where people are peacefully, safely gathered. Awful folks. Shame on 'em.

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

The reaction to Kern's op-ed is proof
Posted by: Cathyblj on Aug 21, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that they are a bunch of hatemongers. It doesn't matter what kind of liberalism UU's espouse - they use the "L" word, and that's enough to set some people off, especially if they listen to those shock jocks. As it turns out, many UU's are politically liberal as well, because they want to make the world a better place.

The bile spewed by shock jocks is far closer to libel than anything Kern wrote. They are allowed to attack with blatant lies, but she is not allowed to even ask questions suggesting that their speech may have influenced the killer.

I loved how Bill Moyers handled the flunkie who was sent to ambush him; then real people with cameras ambushed the flunkie right back.

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

Comprehending hatred in this country...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 22, 2008 1:51 AM   
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 thats 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]

Why should I read ANYTHING associated with Fixed News?
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 22, 2008 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough said.

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

O'Really?
Posted by: Rolomax on Aug 22, 2008 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how well that turd gets any sleep. I wonder if he's ever read Kurt Vonnegut, particularly 'Mother Night'.

I think his opinions are pre-planned and carefully orchestrated to appeal to the older intolerant masses that are about to need social security and medicare paid for by the rest of us. Hey wait! Aren't they forms of socialism? And should these people accept free handouts? Decisions.. decisions..

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

» Clarification? Posted by: Rolomax
You've got to be kidding me!
Posted by: Kate_24 on Aug 22, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shivers just ran down my spine. I cannot believe how people can possibly be so deluded; and so little ashamed of themselves in the face of what they're saying.

There's this saying I once read (though not in English, my translation might be a little off):

Watch your words for they will be your thoughts.
Watch your thoughts for they will be your deeds.
Watch your deeds for they will be your habits.
Watch your habits for they will be your character.
Watch your character for it will be your fate.

It's such a shame people choosing their words, and vile ones at that, so very carelessly have so much power nowadays.

I hope that people will wake up again soon from being hypnotized from angry old white men. And I wish more newspapers and magazines would publish this very carefully written and well argued article.

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

This Is Probably Has A Lot...
Posted by: Wacre on Aug 22, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to do with why this country has such a long way to go till it becomes a place where equality, fairness, and honor matter (beyond constantly saying that they matter, that is).

It appears almost that the rich, along with avoiding paying their taxes by any means possible, also are abdicating the effect that their words have on people.

So, not only do they want all the money and control of our resources, they want none of the responsibility for their deeds.

I know that I am generalizing to a greater or lesser extent, but I don't think that it's debatable that, if you're rich, it means that you not only never have to say you're sorry, you don't even have to take responsibility for the results of your actions.

Sure there are the occasional mea culpas (Don Imus comes to mind, though he still seems to suffer from foot-in-mouth disease) but more often than not they are insincere and don't mean much, primarily because the person in question acts contrite for a few days (if that) then goes right back to spewing hatred toward someone.

Which reminds me, I was born in the late sixties; and while I by no means as a young person spent my time scouting–from an ever-shrinking safe distance–the actions of the lunatic fringe I certainly don't recall such vehement nastiness being thrown about on our airwaves.

And personally I think the whole Freedom of Speech argument is getting somewhat old because such hatred is virtually boundary-less since you can have your hate on virtually any platform you choose.

Listen to Bill O'Reilly on your radio on the way to work! Check out Shawn Hannity on your cell phone! Receive the latest news from Michael Savage on your PDA!

After all, wasn't there a time that these loons spewed the bile of the rather unique worldviews to, should I say, somewhat more 'select' and most importantly, significantly smaller audiences?

Because, while it is always good to know what the the Bill O'Reilly's of the world are lying about next, I have to wonder if his (and those like him) unique brand of rather toxic oratory is doing more to hurt us as a nation now that it has a national platform.

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

Folly of Liberal Passivity
Posted by: kegbot1 on Aug 22, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I wrote on my blog:

There is only one way to deal with the thugs of the right, as Sean Connery said in The Untouchables:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!"

The reason you either ascribe to this course of action or go home and suck your thumb like a ‘good widdle pwogressive’ is the thugs of the right play like Capone:

"I want you to get this fuck where he breathes! I want you to find this nancy-boy Eliot Ness, I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES!"

And that is how Bill O’Reilly and his media thugs treated Jenna Kern.

More here: http://tinyurl.com/5znr23

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

» RE: Folly of Liberal Passivity Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Folly of Liberal Passivity Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Folly of Liberal Passivity Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Folly of Liberal Passivity Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Folly of Liberal Passivity Posted by: Zeugitai
"Wrapped in a Flag and carrying a Bible"
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 22, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that a warning we got in the beginning of our History (Franklin?)regarding how our Demcracy could be undermined and destroyed.
Funny these "patriots" and "Religious Right" have no problmen disregarding,not only Our Constitution & Bill of Rights,But The Ten Commamdments so easily.
These folks have a problem with literacy and Comprehension
'All Men are created Equal' (generic term, but point clear)
'Thou shall not Kill'- again Very Clear
'Place no other God before Me'..I'm pretty sure that means ANY being-Even 'His Son' or other 'Messiahs',esp Talk show personalities and Preachers
You do not need to be affiliated with a Heirachial Religious organization to follow these basic rules and guidelines
So as they march towards me wrapped in their flags and waving their Holy books...I have to wonder Who/What do they think they are Serving?
If they can't read these for themselves,get them on audio tape and think about them without the 'help' of interpretors.
They are also available in Braille for those who have been too 'Blinded by Faith'(Deception)

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

O'Reilly is an asshole!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 22, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the same dipshit that crowed "anyone that uses the 5th Amendment is guilty." That he has relevance on Fox is Murdoch's liability, that anyone else should pay attention there or in his syndicated columns is their liability. The greatest retort is avoidance, enough of which will accord this asshole the deafening silence he has earned.

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

The Religious Right
Posted by: bobtr900 on Aug 22, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity etc are enabled by the Religious Right, the RRs. Thats the thing that is so insane about this entire mess that our country is in. Just look at these peoples religions and their political affiliations.

Then write a letter to the Pope, my religion, I did just that; and will keep on writing. He has no business in our politics, he is a foreign power. I have also written to my local bishop about these same issues.

Those of you who are evangelicals should do the same, write to your religious leaders.

Both of these religious entities are enablers for the Republican party, The party of the 'Culture of Death' for profits and ever more political power.

No religion should ever step down to any political party. And certainly not the Repub party and it's slime machine for profits and more war and killing. Just look at all the death this has caused.

Right wing religions are behind this, every bit as much as Fascist big Business and the Neocons are behind this.

When Scalia and the right wing scum on the SCOTUS get done with us there will not be a law or a right left standing. We will have become a Theo-Business Empire for killing. Now the killing is for oil profits, next the killing will be for religious ideology, after that it will be for Big Pharma profits when they find out that India can produce drugs for one-tenth of the cost of producing the same drugs here in America. So our country will be at war with India. And this just goes on and on and on.

Then we will be nuking Russia because the Pope wants us to attack Communism, Moscow. So how many Muscovites will have to die to satisfy his thirst for ideology. After that of course we will be attacking China which is also a Communist country.

I can see WWIII coming, in the ME. Then it will be WWIV, which will be with Russia. Next will come WWV which will be with the EU for their supposedly pagan ways. The Big Religions and the Big Bush family will keep pushing for all of these wars and killing.

These groups/entities all profit from all of this killing in some way or other. The Pope gets souls. The Bush family makes billions. Mega-churches get ever richer and more powerful. While the average everyday Joe Taxpayer pays for all of this killing in blood and treasure.

Why don't we just give diplomacy a chance.

Jesus would demand it, I believe. He spoke of peace,love and tolerance. Why do these values just get thrown out the window when religious ideology or business ideology come in the room. Why do these ideologies always trump reality and human values.

The aforementioned will destroy or at least devolve the Family of Man if given enough leeway. 'We the people' will have both our bodies and our souls stolen by Religious ideology and by Business ideology. It's all just slavery of one kind or another. Big Religion will own our souls and Big Business will own our bodies.

Demand diplomacy. Stop the killing.

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

(1) Get to the Sponsors and (2) Help Build the Alternative
Posted by: BobKincaid on Aug 22, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to getting to these viurlent purveyors of murder. Committed action to demand they withdraw support WILL have an impact, because the O'Reillys, SavageWeiners, Phlegmballs et al. are first and foremost corporatists.

The other means of fighting back, however, is to support those who are creating an alternative to right-wing hateradio. There aren't a lot of us, but we are out here.

The H.O.R.N., for instance, America's Liberal Voice with which I am closely involved as both a founder and a host, is actually older than AirAmerica and has no connections to former Clear Channel execs. We are almost exclusively listener supported and have re-examined what "talkradio" means. We've re-designed it to fit progressive/liberal thought processes, offering Conversation Radio in which work-a-day Americans get the regard they deserve, being afforded an abundance of time in which to make their point without being interrupted or run off for the next commercial break. In the main, there aren't any commercial breaks.

The H.O.R.N., among other things, offers a blend of veteran broadcasters talent (Guy James, Mark Levine, Bob Kincaid), coupled with the opportunity for people with the drive to try to even take a run at entering the medium themselves. Among other things, the H.O.R.N. also offers the only five-night-per-week LGBT program in the country, in the form of Peter Godbold's "Strictly Confidential."

We do all of this on the last thread of a frayed shoestring budget. Overall, the response has been amazing. No flashy PR campaigns, no millionaire "personalities," no ads for herbal baldness remedies or swedish mattresses r "BUY GOLD NOW". Nothing, in fact, but straightforward, enjoyable, rousing liberal conversation that makes dedicated listeners of virtually everyone who finds us.

The H.O.R.N. doesn't charge for access to archives or podcasting. They're always available at The White Rose Society and the live stream rolls 24/7 both at The H.O.R.N.'s Home, as well as on iTunes Radio, iPhone, Reciva and Nokia cellphone. There's a free chatroom for listeners and a forum, as well as blogging, to facilitate the entire multimedia experience. Eventually, we'll offer video, too, once that becomes financially feasible.

If you're looking for something different, something to counter the virulent, pustulent toxicity of the right wing, you'll find it at the H.O.R.N.

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

This shooter was a typical conservative coward, in many ways
Posted by: Beck on Aug 22, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This act was the epitome of conservative cowardice. The shooter claimed that Democrats had tied his country's hands against terrorists, but in typical selfish, cowardly, AWOL conservative fashion, did he go after terrorists? He did not. He went into a situation where he knew he'd find a very specific group, unarmed liberals. He knew there would be kids there. He opened fire, but got the shock of his life, I imagine, as did many gun supporters who won't admit it. A pack of unarmed liberals tackled him and subdued him. But he chose that church specifically out of cowardice. And the cowardice was twofold: he opened fire on an unsuspecting group, and he didn't actually attack the terrorists, did he? He stole a page from Bush, the ultimate no-show. Or wait, is Cheney the ultimate no-show? Is O'Reilly? Is Rove? Limbaugh? Did any of those war-mongers EVER show up and fight for let alone dangerous, life-disrupting at the very least, AND low paid, unless you work for one of the Republican firms instead of the actual military?

Conservatism is the madness that is seeming to ultimately undo us. Put into place a bunch of policies that don't work, trash the nation, destroy the environment, break the bank? Do them more! Feel the country needs to be more patriotic? Criticize those who wait too long to put on a lapel pin, not those who "support" a war but stay home anyway. This list could go on and on, but it boils down to one thing: the conservative movement is hypocritical, lazy, cowardly, and dangerous. Reminds of words spoken long, long ago:

". . .do not do what they do, for they do not practice as they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. . .Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees (conservatives), hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. . . you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside are full of greed and self-indulgence. . .You are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful (except for Limbaugh) but inside they are full of the bones fo the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you on the outside look righteous to others, but insdie you are full of hypocrisy and lawlesness."

A perfect description of the newest group of scribes and Pharisees, the conservatives.

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

Turn off that hate radio/tv media and let's prepare for a great educational supplement.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 22, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This kind of hate talk on the radio and tv has been in full force for the past 2 decades so what's new? If we all would unite and quit allowing macho violence to dominate our thinking, we wouldn't be living in this terrorist world. Besides, how many private/public schools in this country bother to teach BASIC INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS (BICS) and BASIC DISCIPLINE these days? A course in each of those alone would get young minds on a better track and even adults could be trained in at least BICS to repair their otherwise rough and tumble lives and fight back with pride. Let us go on the offensive and concentrate on spreading good education that you won't find in most schools or colleges for a change. The least we could do is moderate and make life far less rough and tumble in the long run.

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

republican lap dogs
Posted by: willd4change on Aug 22, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thats all these guys are. Start calling into their shows and put them on the spot. They will hang up and never answer a straight question. You can find that type of media on both sides of the court. I like to call a spade a spade can't argue with the truth as long as you have the proof to back it up.

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

» I must disagree Posted by: BobKincaid
We need to learn how this process works
Posted by: BobKincaid on Aug 22, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and why the hatemongers get away with what they do. It involves learning about the medium itself, and the corporate financial structure that enables it.

Michael Reagan called for someone to kill Mark Dice on his show. He even said "I'll buy the bullets." While it's true that Reagan later voluntarily "apologized," it's also true that "you can't unring a bell." Within the demographic that heard those comments, it is statistically likely that there were one or more people who, given the opportunity, would act on Reagan's words. The terrorist attack at TVUUC bears that out.

The best example of how to deal with these murdermongers was set by a blogger named Spocko. He recorded Melanie Morgan's show in SF, took the audio to her sponsors, and they dumped her like a hot rock. A year later, her contract wasn't renewed. She was, admittedly a smaller right-wing fish, but she was taken off the air after calling for things like the assassination of Nancy Pelosi.

Spocko's efforts can, in fact, be replicated. The pressure must be put on the advertisers. The syndicator/producer doesn't care. In fact, when people make a big noise about something one of their hatemongers has said, they laugh all the way to the bank. There's a saying out there: "Those who love Howard Stern listen for an hour a day. Those who hate Howard Stern listen for three hours a day. That's instructive.

All of these programs are functions of the most crassly crafted marketing calculus. As long as no one threatens the marketability of the product, the advertisers will continue to subsidize the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages and O'Reillys at higher and higher levels.

Only when it becomes economically painful for the advertisers to continue their support will hateradio finally see the setting of its sun.

It's an unpleasant experience, but listen to a few of these programs for the entire show. Learn about how the ads are structured. Screw the content. Pay attention to the commercial breaks. Learn the difference between a "network ad avail," which airs on all the stations and a "local ad avail" which airs only in the market in which you're listening. Then you'll see how to oppose and diffuse the programs that push Americans to kill each other.

These programs are almost all offered to stations essentially for "free," i.e. on a "barter" basis. That means that the local broadcaster gets to run the show in exchange for running the network's ads. The network then charges confiscatory ad rates for the opportunity to get their message to the national audience.

Once you've sorted the network avails from the local ones, you can begin to take action against both, and do so with a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding to be taken seriously by the people with whom you lodge your complaints, i.e. the advertisers.

Commercial radio, be it music or right-wing hate or the Top 40 show, is a brutal, mercenary business, and ONLY that: business. Make hateradio bad for business and hateradio goes away.

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

» RE: Dialog Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: Dialog Posted by: BobKincaid
first off, then...
Posted by: ellie on Aug 22, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have never read the bible and have no intention of ever doing it, don't subscribe to any religion at all, but take people at who they are and cut off the religion part... funny thing is that I was able ONCE to have conversations with a christian fundamentalist who then quit his church... when it comes to attacks on non-bible believers it all comes down to hate...

second, hold your friends close and your enemies closer... bring on the stalkers, bullies (was a bully myself in school when needed) and hate writers...

as a nation, we all need to grow up... kindergarten rules still apply...

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

Tolerance is highly over-rated
Posted by: Bambi on Aug 22, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow ... what a story. Thank you for posting this. Looks like the haters know their days are numbered and are lashing out. Good news and bad news.

I have long since stopped waving the tolerance flag. I don't tolerate haters, child-abusers, planet-killers ... this list goes on. Tolerance is one of those throw-away sayings like: honoring diversity. It means nothing.

Tolerance has nothing to do with not judging, hating or beating up someone ... because they are of a different race, belief system or sexual persuasion than you. That's just plain old respect and being raised right by your Momma.

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

Choose your battles...
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Aug 22, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being liberal/progressive does not mean being a passive, good little sheep.

You don't defeat the playground bully by "turning the other cheek". You also don't defeat him by walking away. Bullies will always go after a target they percieve as weak.

The best "cure" for a bully is a bloody nose. What's worse, a moment of voilence, or continued taunting and harrassment? I don't go spoiling for a fight, but I will not run from one either.

These hate-merchants see no down-side -- no consequences -- for their actions. So long as there aren't any, they will continue.

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

» RE: Choose your battles... Posted by: okiedokey
HAH HAH that bit them in the ass
Posted by: cyr3n on Aug 22, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the same camp that is so quick to blame video games and comic books in a would-be school shooter's bedroom... who'd have guessed their literary works would find themselves among the sundries of the aforementioned's summer reading list.

Softporn hate speech can come in many forms folks. Books, blogs, comics, movies, and games are all viable vectors for this sort of thing.

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

I thought it immediately
Posted by: okiedokey on Aug 22, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I heard of the shootings "because liberals are ruining this country," I immediately thought of the hate monger punkdits (no this is not misspelled) like O'Reilley, Hannity, Coulter, et.al. I did a low power FM radio show in my community on just that subject the day I heard of the killings. Anal orifices like the above mentioned need to know that it is no longer going to be "open season" on liberals/progressives in the media. They have to accept responsibility for their actions just as anyone yelling "fire" (where there is none) inside a building where people are then rampled to death should be.

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

Archie1954
Posted by: Archie1954 on Aug 22, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence here to show that these rightwing recalcitrants influenced the shooters thinking and perhaps were in fact the reason for his evil deed. All of their feigned hurt and surprise that they could possibly have had any part in this dastardly enterprise is simply even more proof of their complicity. You know the best defense is a good offense. No one wants to curtail their right to say what they wish but surely they themselves should have enough brains to self censor the worst of their diatribes based on their own knowledge of the potential harm it could do. In effect they are saying we have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and no-one can stop us. Today, that simply isn't good enough.

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

You Have No Right Not To Be Offended
Posted by: Elurby on Aug 22, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#######
#######


Have liberals and their popular
culture of hedonistic liberalism
destroyed America's once-civil
society, as the killer had
claimed?


Have you liberals compared the cultural/
political/racial/financial markers defined
by the term, "civilized," in, say, 1958 to
present-day markers of CIVILITY?

Hmmm...let's count the ways liberalism has
trashed America (( the hate-speech aspects
of this below list notwithstanding--and
which list is not meant to drive anyone to
kill liberals, BUT TO THINK MORE DEEPLY )):

What constitutes liberals' "high
culture" in today's America?:

1)) Is it the broken families;

2)) is it the broken communities
that tyrannical government effected
through FORCED integration of
blacks into them;

3)) is it the broken schools that
tyrannical government effected
through FORCED busing of blacks
into them;

4)) is it the kids killing kids
on the streets and in schools;

5)) is it the Hollywood films and
African-based rap, gangsta-rap
and hip-hop driving the killings;

6)) is it the teen-age girls
and boys fornicating to spread
diseases and have babies;

7)) is it teen girls' now-lawful
acquisition of abortions without
parental knowledge or consent;

8)) is it the "partial birth"
infanticides;

9)) is it those human slaughter-
houses, built to remedy "accidents"
from one-night stands and rampant
hedonism;

10)) is it the AIDS-spreading gay
bathhouses sanctioned to remain
open by "civil" government;

11)) is it the XXX pornography
that has gone mainstream, in
schools and homes and stores;

12)) is it those grade-schoolers
having oral sex to avoid having
"sex";

13)) is it the borderless "nation"
and its unbridled immigration,
destroying white Western civiliza-
tion in America;

14)) is it the idea "consumership"
replacing the idea "citizenship,"
and "New World Order" replacing
"sovereignty";

15)) is it White House orgies
and the "no big deal" attitude
of the hedonist majority;

16)) is it the vulgarities
replacing honor and moral
virtue in both citizenry
and statesmen;

17)) is it homosexuality as
normalcy and heterosexuality
as "rape";

18)) is it the American
Psychological Association
trying to mainstream pedophilia
and fatherless homes;

19)) is it the American Library
Association trying to peddle
pornography to children in
public libraries;

20)) is it . . . ?

Well, you get the picture. And
if my words offend you, keep in
mind that you have no CONSTITU-
TIONAL right not to be offended.

However, you may counter my hate-
speech with your own logic-premised
views of opposition.

I promise not to be offended. But
be prepared, as I'll fire back; that
is, "fire back" in the sense of
shooting you with words.

#######
#######

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

» Incoherence Deserves No Reply, but Posted by: blackie4aces
» You have no right to be so stupid Posted by: karinkdf82
Non sequitor
Posted by: kiel on Aug 22, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...nothing more than an in-print character assassination of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly..."

Um, to assassinate these guys' characters, they'd have to have character first. Or at least have character that didn't reek of roadkill.

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

» RE: Non sequitor Posted by: karinkdf82
A License To Kill
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Aug 22, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The motive behind the shooting at a Universalist church in Knoxville symbolizes America's now increasingly failing experiment in what is revered as "freedom" of "speech": there is only one prevalent tenet of speech out today, which is the conservative point of view which has dictated the national concensus.
Most American media outlets are controlled by conservative corporations who push the conservative ideology; in letters to the editor or the editorial page is conservative; or right-wing values are trumpeted and the "liberal" side is altogether silenced.
Someone, however, ought to remind the perpetrator that freedom of speech comes at a price: journalists have been thrown in the hoosegow, murdered and harrassed just to give YOU the right to speak (we hope intelligently AND philosophically, even though that is wanting) even IF it is an opposing side. And using a gun to stress a point makes you look foolish.
Someone ought to tell him that arguments cannot be solved by violence; disagreements in a belief does NOT give ANYONE a de facto license to kill. Those like Limbaugh, Stern, and O'Reilly only pour more water on a drowning man.
Therefore, this man not only killed people, he also killed our "freedom" of "speech".

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

» RE: A License To Kill Posted by: jrmart
Will no one rid me of these troublesome liberals?
Posted by: JayHaden on Aug 22, 2008 12:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently responded to a libertarian opinion piece in the Bozeman newspaper that advocated nuclear reactors in Montana. I pointed out that the price of uranium was likely to go skyward like oil, making electricity very expensive if we rely on nukes. For that, I was branded in a letter to the editor as a left-wing, liberal elitist of the type that ought to be eliminated from the "equation."

I talked with the paper's editor about the provocative nature of this letter, especially in light of the killings at the UU church and the murder of the head of the Democratic Party in Little Rock. He seemed sympathetic, but took no responsibility and claimed the paper had no space for a guest column on the subject.

Two months ago, people might have been excused for viewing such a letter as right-wing hyperbole and bluster. Even people close to me say it sounds like just another pissing match. It should now be crystal clear that provocative speech will eventually reach some crazy, impressionable gunslinger who is looking to punish someone for his problems.

I have been waiting in vain for our local UU church and the Democratic Party to react. These are the groups that have been most recently touched by the impact of hate speech against liberals. Even moderate Republicans, now being tarred with the brush we use to paint the loony right wing, have nothing constructive to say.

Yes, we have guaranteed free speech, but the government can do a lot to curb the vile blatherings that go out over our public airwaves (they prohibit dirty talk, after all); and publishers of hate speech can also be brought to book, although it would normally be after the deed has been done. If more people would climb out their stupor and say something, maybe the bullies would at least hold their tongue. At one time they would have been ostracized for their provocations. But we're too civilized now, I guess.

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

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» My God you are a moron Posted by: kegbot1
Media Research Center
Posted by: jrmart on Aug 22, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I subscribe to this rag. I do so to be alerted to those those hated by them so that i can support those they attack.
I was asked to send the protest to Newsweek. I did. bt with praise for Newsweek and support for Jena and Her church.
for a group that wraps themselves in the mantle of Christ, it is strange indeed that they should attack a Christian church. Isn't that something like shooting yourself in the foot?

I challenge the Rush, Savage et all gang to find one liberal talk show that has advocated violance against them. Although I have never killed a man myself, there are many whose demise would bring no mourning from me.

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

Off Adrift in the Land of ClusterFuck
Posted by: blackie4aces on Aug 22, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
L. Brent Bozell..........…” since it was “nothing more than an in-print character assassination of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly,"

This is hilarious. How can you assassinate character when there is none there in the first place? Accusing these three medicine show assholes of having character is about the same thing as attributing some mediocre carny illusionist with magical powers.

"liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces"--Rush Limpdick

Greatest Threat? Now that's some pretty serious shit when you consider the nuclear arsenal of a revitalized and mighty pissed-off Russia, thanks in large part to the policies supported by this triumverate of dumbshit reaction. I guess Islamofascists must really be pitiful pussies if wimps and cowards like Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal congressional contingent are the "greatest threat" this country faces!

Sean Hannity in 2006--"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker."

What he really meant is there are things in life worth fighting and dying for by other people, because Sean ain't gonna' do nothin' to risk losing his perks and the big salary he gets for essentially preaching to the most mal-educated, ignorant, stupid, and bigoted segment of American society. This is a dream gig because he can say anything he likes, doing little or no work on research or fact finding. The dumb shits that listen to him are way too stupid to apply any critical analysis to his blather. He can just make it up as he goes along, which he, in fact, often does. Hannity, die for something? I doubt with all certainty that there is any cause in the universe this punk would even be willing to risk minor injury for, particularly if it involved his big mouth.

Why would anyone, anyone, even the most reactionary dumber-than-coal jerk-off be willing to fucking die over Nancy Pelosi? Well, maybe Hannity found one.

Comments, Hate Mail welcome:

Satan's Neutral Corner
satansneutralcorner@yahoo.com

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

Connecting dots..
Posted by: daniel1982 on Aug 22, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can connect the dots between Marx's "The Communist Manifesto", and genocide, loss of freedom and economic decline .. but I still wouldn't want it banned.

Free speech is free speech, even if it is reprehensible (like the Marx's writings).

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

» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: blackie4aces
» Oops - that's JayHaden Posted by: bingahaba
» Sure Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: Connecting dots.. Posted by: daniel1982
» Loss of freedom? Posted by: bingahaba
» The Evil Communists of China Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: The Evil Communists of China Posted by: daniel1982
» minor correction Posted by: bingahaba
» India data sources Posted by: bingahaba
» More India data Posted by: bingahaba
» RE: The Evil Communists of China Posted by: daniel1982
» Second last post Posted by: bingahaba
» On correlations Posted by: bingahaba
» Decade by decade data for China Posted by: bingahaba
» Data for USA going back to 1850 Posted by: bingahaba
Equation
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Aug 22, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill O'Reilly = Hatemongering Imbecile

Will somebody please explain to me how the likes of this moron can have a TV program that people actually watch?

This is as much a sign of the fascist shift in this country as having Dick Cheney as vice president.

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

christian taliban, hannity, o'reilly, limbaugh
Posted by: wisegalah on Aug 22, 2008 8:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These three are as stupid as the taliban whom they oppose.
These christian taliban, however, are cowards in that they hide behind their microphones and would never be seen with an AK47 and risking their lives. They just incite others to do thier dirty work.
How do these scum get to have access to the airwaves?

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

listen carefully
Posted by: social democract on Aug 22, 2008 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After nearly eight years of listening to BushCo, I have learned that they always tell us exactly what they're going to do, but never directly. They'll either say the opposite, or they'll project it onto the Democrats. So when I read something like this, it sends chills:

"Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy. ... They would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within.""

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

Some parts of Kern's generally good piece bordered on "hate speech"
Posted by: Tim V on Aug 23, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though it is generally a valuable call for verbal resistance to hateful words, some of the text in Kern's op-ed piece bordered on "hate speech". In particular, her claim that the UU Church gunman was "obviously mentally unbalanced" along with her talk about what "crazy" people might do hinted that ALL people with mental illness are creeps like this killer - Clearly a sweeping generalization.
May I suggest that this gunman was afflicted with an extremely bad attitude as opposed to mental illness? I didn't see anything in the news reports that he had any record of mental health treatment.

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

go after the sponsors of Savage,Hannity and Oriley
Posted by: whealeydj on Aug 23, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe Rory O'Connor can reaveal who have been the companies that routinely advertise on their shows. an economic boycott of their sponsors may be effective in driving down their listner base. conversely who is sponsoring Olbermann? we need to let the advertisers know how we feel about their choice in sponsorship and how it causes us to few their companies. I thought publishing the editorial O'riley attacked was quite good.

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

how about this idea...
Posted by: ellie on Aug 23, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if we can't shut up the ones that need to be bound and gagged, how about if we just plain list the sponsors of these programs, then write up a statement, have friends, enemies and relative sign it saying we're not going to buy your stuff as long as you sponsor these idiots...

then really don't buy those products... seems that hitting corporations in the wallet may be the only way we have left to fight back... other avenues we have tried have failed because no one listens or cares anymore except for profits...

simplistic yes, but an idea...

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

Be careful with hate - it is catching
Posted by: maxsmart on Aug 23, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First lets face a few things, 60 minutes started some of this kind of reporting!
As for Red Rover, Lyndon Johnson's attack ad on Goldwater was provacative. As for election fraud, what about Kennedy and Nixon in Chicago.
So let's not get too high and mighty about things.
Next everyone should realize that the founding fathers were liberals so why are you letting Royalists make it a bad label. It might be good to re-educate ourselves regarding founding principles while at the same time seeing clearly some of the myopathy that we all have in applying some of our principles.
Next the hatreds being stirred must not be allowed to stir hatred in return.
We must wonder if our anger relates to our political system being so inclusive that no one thinks their view is being heard. We have become way too homogenized and principles pasteurized.
Anger and hatred as with war and nationalism need to be seen as failed paradigms for solving problems. We do have a problem with a vast adversarial legal system, political campaigns that force combative competitiveness in order to stand out in the midst of an over-sexed media that is the background static of our world. When there are winners there are losers and with that logic everyone loses.
If we as humans don't learn how to use our minds we will end up on the trash heap of evolutionary history whether you belive in evolution or not. Making God in Man's image isn't wrong but Man should decide who he wants to be first.

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

Patriots or promoters of violence!
Posted by: keystone999 on Aug 23, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was it Upton Sinclair who said " When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying and cross"? We are seeing this regularly where talk radio pundits give extreme rants, feeding the hostility of the unread and unbalanced. They hide behind the idea of freedom of speech, while seeking to eliminate any rational discussion of ideas that don't fit into their Nazi-like world view where the rich and powerful are treated like G_d's anointed and the rest of humanity exist only to serve them. Only evil people attack and intimidate - usually for lack of any intellectually or morally defensible argument. It is too bad that "liberal media" is still a figment of the Neo-Con's imagination.

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

HATE RADIO KILLS. LETS GO THE WHOLE DISTANCE. THE U.U. ATTACK
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Aug 23, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was just one in the series. We can only tell the motivation of the man that killed the head of the Arkansas democratic party from his choice of victim. He was conveniently killed.

Timothy McVeigh was a proven right wing radical and a student of right wing hate radio. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons they had to kill him as soon as possible. He was political liability.

The republicans say that these are all unrelated incidents are done by deranged individuals. I will go with the deranged part. But they are a product of radical right wing propaganda. McCain and the RNC do not distance themselves from FOX or hate radio. They support it. They need it to get where they are trying to go. See what happens if you ask them to help you shut it down. They protect it.

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

Haters respond to allegations of hate with more hate!
Posted by: BobNoxious on Aug 23, 2008 10:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor little rich hate-mongers are SO oppressed!
They publicly call for the murders of people they personally hate, then when some of their sociopathic sycophants follow through with it, its not their doing.
Just like their fearless leader who screws up everything he touches, then swears its anyone else's fault but his own.
How dare anyone point out their cowardice.

Why do Republicans hate America?

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

And you know...
Posted by: BobNoxious on Aug 23, 2008 11:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that if any progressive such as Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes EVER publicly called for the killing of any right-wing moonbats, (which they never would, because they're not heartless monsters) those left-wingers would be in GITMO!
Apparently, domestic terrorism is OK, if you're a registered Republican.
Never forget that the SECOND worst terror attack on our nation was committed by a White Male Republican, who was also a big fan of O'Lielly and Hammity. (you know, the one in OKC)

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

Opinion is opinion
Posted by: SjrBoomz on Aug 25, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not quite understanding why that article was blown so far out of proportion...
She was simply voicing her opinion on media influence. Right-wingers like the "fine men offended by this article" do the same thing all the time when they blow crime rates and security threats out of proportion.
A little hypocritical to be offended by that..
They're well known members of society - if they didn't want to face criticism and judgment from their audience, they should have stayed out of the business. That's just part of it - some people will like you and your opinions, others won't and they have every right to voice that!

It's not like she was actually placing a smoking gun in their hands. She did not claim that they personally had any involvement with the shooting.
The only reason they made such a big deal out of this is because it makes them look bad - it forces them to try to justify their opinions. Something that anyone who wishes to take part in the ongoing debate between the right and left ought to expect.

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

Since it was a Church
Posted by: mike_burns on Aug 26, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since it was a church where the killings took place, I will quote Jesus.
He was picking grain in the field to get something to eat, on a Sunday. The Pharisees was critical of him for doing so.
Jesus said "It is not what what goes in, but what comes out of the mouth that devours the souls of men".
He was talking about hate speech.
They read and hear the words, but they do not listen. "Those who can hear, let them hear", "The blind follow the blind, for they all fall into the ditch".
America is following those who have been blinded by hate.

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

A different approach
Posted by: bingahaba on Aug 26, 2008 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many people who hold such jaundiced and hateful views are often lonely people, who find community in hateful blogs etc. A stronger tactic, in one's neighborhood, would be to have community meetings - outings with the younger adults, middle aged and elderly, where they can come into contact with you - it is harder to psychologically make enemies out of people you know, go out with etc. Organize a tour to a state or national park - I'm sure the 'right' wing does that, or at least certain factions thereof.

Get to know your neighbors, and at least greet them looking them in the eyes, without being threatening, let them see you keep the neighborhood clean, engage them in inviting ways - that way, the chances of them finding community only in hate is reduced, and an alternative is made available.

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

Billy is silly
Posted by: xmvince on Aug 27, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote:
O'Reilly has stated that "the far left in America is dominated by haters, people who despise their own country."

And? What's wrong with despising something that lies, cheats, and steals? Are we supposed to bend over and take it like a true conservative?

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