From what we know so far, the shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington that left a security guard dead was carried out by an 88-year-old anti-Semitic, white supremacist with a history of crazy activism. Now, just in the past 2 weeks, we have had three fatal shootings carried out for different reasons (Washington, Arkansas and Kansas). Already, the left is painting these shootings (at least two of them) according to their agenda.
Last night, Keith Olbermann described the shootings in Washington and Kansas (George Tiller) to fit neatly into his little left-wing template. That template contains two shootings by "right-wing" radicals/terrorists. Olbermann completely left out the killing of an army private in Arkansas by a Muslim convert because that didn't fit into his template at all. Thus, in Olbermann's world, there were only two shootings of note.
But it was the shooting at the Holocaust Museum that led Keith to bring up the report done by the Department of Homeland Security warning about "dangerous right-wing extremists" and returning war vets that led to an apology from Director Janet Napolitano. During Keith's interview with Northeastern University professor Jack Levin, he started talking about right-wing anti-Semites when Levin corrected him by mentioning the "new anti-Semitism" coming from the left over the issue of Israel/Palestine-something that I write about often.
What happened at the Holocaust Museum was a terrible act carried out by a despicable racist and anti-Semite. It is not typical of conservatives in any way. It should be condemned on its own merits just as the other two shootings should be. To use this incident as an excuse to attack the right is outrageous. Last night, Olbermann exposed himself as a man with an agenda, who will pick two out the three recent attacks that fit into that agenda while leaving out the one which does not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Actually there's been three killings by right-wing extremists in the past three months when you count the white supremacist that shot three cops in Pittsburgh in April.
Look, you're missing the point by turning this into a discussion about Keith Olbermann. Forget that. The point is, DHS warned about this happening, and it is. I wish you were right, that these types weren't a growing threat, but they clearly are. The DHS report was commissioned under President Bush, not Obama, and not once does it ever use the word "conservative." Tell me Gary, can you distinguish in your mind between two binary political positions of liberal and conservative?
Let's take the old Weather Underground as an example. Can we agree that they were a far-left extremist group? I think so. But they weren't liberals. Just as these three recent right-wing extremists weren't conservatives. But they were on the right, no doubt. The point is, the political spectrum is a large continuum of positions. On the left you have liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists and so on. On the right you have conservatives, libertarians, fascists, white supremacists etc.
No one is saying conservatives such as yourself are going to go out and shoot up a Holocaust Museum or that you should be "watched." The Bush Administration DHS report (correctly) argued it's the extreme ends of BOTH sides of the spectrum (a companion report on left-wing extremists was also made) that need to be monitored and prevented from carrying out attacks.
What it boils down to is that you need to admit that you were wrong about the DHS report and realize that it wasn't talking about conservatives, but far-right extremists such as Tiller's murderer and von Brunn. Stop thinking that people fall into two neat little categories of "right" or "left" and realize that it's more nuanced than that.
Bryan,
Your points deserve a detailed response. I won't be able to respond until early next week, but I will respond. Suffice to say now that the media is saying that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill OReilly share blame for at least two of these shootings while barely even covering the one in Arkansas.
What angered conservatives was the notion that everyone who disagrees with the President on the right was a terrorist, and that returning vets would be an easy target for Ultra-right wing nutcases.
There has been violence done by nut jobs on the extreme left and right for the past 2 decades. But those who are actually not to the extreme positions should not even be considered (since they work for CHANGE within the system, not trying to destroy it).
I find the actions of the extremist appalling on both sides of the political spectrum. Having no place in our society.
Findalis raises a great point. We shouldn't condemn those who work within the system to bring about change with those who go outside the system. This country is perfectly designed to to bring about just change. The Civil Rights Movement was the classic example.
The 3 recent shootings are all to be condemned without trying to make political capital on them.
Findalis raises a great point. We shouldn't condemn those who work within the system to bring about change with those who go outside the system. This country is perfectly designed to to bring about just change. The Civil Rights Movement was the classic example.
The 3 recent shootings are all to be condemned without trying to make political capital on them.
That is ridiculous though, because that notion (that anyone who disagreed with the administration was a right-wing extremist) was asserted NOWHERE in the DHS report. It never even used the word "conservative."
I think it's interesting that Findalis has clearly avoided discussing this incident on her own blog. Not a single mention of it as far as I can see. Yet I can easily imagine the deluge of posts that would have existed had the perpetrator been a Muslim.
On a side note, I read that Sean Hannity has only devoted something like two sentences to the museum shooting, even after blasting the media for supposedly ignoring the recruiter shooting. Bill O'Reilly, too. So I guess they're ignoring this one as well. But they're the "fair and balanced" ones, of course.
I didn't mention it for a few reasons:
1. For most of last week my internet was down.
2. With so many people blogging about it, it would just be overkill.
3. Pure shock at the horror of this hideous deed.
The last one is the most important one.
I will come out with something (when I can find the right words). Just not now.
When it first happened I didn't suspect a Muslim, Bryan but a neo-Nazi kook. Funny how it is.
Actually FOX gave quite a bit of coverage to this story.
Just with a different angle.
Of course Fox covered it. If it bleeds, it leads. But Hannity and O'Reilly specifically have ignored it. Even after blasting others for giving less coverage to the murder of the recruiter. Ironic and hypocritical.
Bryan,
Maybe I'm getting old and having trouble following the thread, but you are saying that Hannity and O'Reilly have ignored the Holocaust Museum shooting? Have I failed to notice that when I watch Fox? Findalis, what have you seen on Fox?
It is true that FOX didn't have the same extensive coverage (24 hours of it being the only story) that the liberal media did, but they did not only cover it, but condemned the shooter.
Let me reiterate: I am saying that Hannity and O'Reilly SPECIFICALLY have all but ignored the story completely. I'm not talking about Fox News Network in general. And this is what, a week or less since they were themselves moaning about the lack of media coverage over the recruiter murder? It absolutely reeks of hypocrisy.
Post a Comment