Sunday, January 9, 2011

Why won't Palin denounce violence?

Why won't she, why won't Beck, or Limbaugh, or any of the others? The statement by Boehner was the closest thing I have seen to an outright denouncement of violence against people you didn't agree with politically but you don't see anyone else on the far right doing that? Why don't you hear someone like Beck take time out on their show to say something like, "you know folks, as much as I dislike and don't agree with the policies of those on the left, we have to remember that they are human beings with the same rights as the rest of us. While we should oppose their policies as much as possible, never should violence even be considered." You'll hear things like this from Boehner and Cantor because they are not motivated as much by ideology as they are with just power and money.

Unfortunately, since the election of Obama, the rhetoric on the far right has gone from what used to be your typical bully-ish attitude to an almost shrill, angry cacophony. So many times I have heard people say things like "I wish someone would shoot that fucking nigger" or other similar statements. Yes, I have unfortunately heard things like that about President Bush when he was in office but it seems that those on the hard right fringes are usually more willing to carry out acts of violence and intimidation. I have personally received threats of death and violence as well as having my vehicle vandalized for a simple sticker opposing Bush and the Iraq war. You don't usually hear about this from the left because, to put it bluntly, most liberals are pussies, especially here in the US.

When on a daily basis, you say things that are inflammatory and you accuse your own countrymen of being traitors, repeatedly talk about revolutions and other rhetoric that is viewed by millions, don't be surprised when one of those people picks up a gun and does something about it. Just because what you say is Constitutionally protected doesn't make it right. There is a moral obligation by those whose words are heard by so many to be voices of reasonable dissent and not to fan the flames of the mentally unstable. To do otherwise is to counteract the process of liberty and democracy which they claim to hold so dear.


  1. I think that she and all of the rest have no need to denounce it because they had nothing to do with the guy's insanity. Second, where has there been a proven connection to any one on the right having been any sort of influence. Third, there is evidence that the shooter was a volunteer for one of her campaigns. So again, what should they denounce? Violence? Why should anyone need to denounce violence? It should go with out saying that violence should not be anything other than a life and death last resort. So calling for them to denounce something like that is kind of silly.

  2. I think what there needs to be a conversation on both sides of the aisle where people in her position of influence say "hey, knock it off" to those on either fringe. Making a statement like that is not an admission of any real or imagined guilt but I don't see her or any of the other popular pundits doing that because it will hurt their ratings with the most rabid members of their audiences. Beck won't do that because if he backs off his message of doom, there goes his gig as the gold spokesman.