Rather than write a long rant about what's wrong with our current political system, I just have a few questions about a double standard:
1. What if a Black man showed up to a presidential event with a gun strapped to his back and a sign that read, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants?"
2. What if a Black man got on a nationally syndicated radio show, such as Glenn Beck's, and advised people to go out and purchase guns...to be armed and dangerous?
3. What if a Black man had spat on a Congressman?
4. What if a group of Black men had beat up a small, white female protester in Kentucky?
5. Why haven't there been any Congressional hearings for White Supremacist groups? Why haven't they been summoned to the Hill?
I think we know the answer to these questions...People often conclude that Black people in America are too sensitive and play the race card when race isn't even in the game. But anybody reading these questions, regardless of color, knows the answer.
Think I'm just spouting conspiracy theories here? Replace the word "Black" with "Mexican." The answers would still be the same.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Unacknowledged Debt and Phallic Distractions
I have not posted in a long time. I normally take my posts directly from the nightly news. However, I feel that the news has gone on a constant political sideshow for the past three weeks; between Palin and Weiner's picture of a package, there has not been much substance behind the reporting.
The coverage of the false arguments about the debt ceiling has been rather scant. Instead of focusing on Weiner's package, our outlets should have been focusing on the false connections made between employment and the debt ceiling. I am appalled at the way Republicans and conservatives misuse the press by repeatedly making rhetorical/argumentative errors that we learn to avoid in any debate or composition II class. And since these people have all had some sort of higher learning, I want to say that they do this by design. And since journalists have also gone to college, I want to say that they are not calling the culprits on their error by design. Why kill this argument and kill the ratings? Better yet, why have this argument and kill the ratings when Palin's stupidity and Weiner's penis are much more interesting to viewers?
Here is the false argument that the Right and Republicans repeatedly make: the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with employment, or economic growth. The debt ceiling is simply an acknowledgement of the bills we have to pay. That's it: to raise the debt ceiling is to acknowledge the nation's bills so that they may be paid. To constantly conflate the debt ceiling with economic growth or the need to decrease taxes on the rich or the need to cut social spending programs is to commit several non sequitur fallacies. One thing has almost nothing to do with the other, but may appear that way. It is like saying: "if we hold firm on the debt ceiling, the economy will bounce back." Anyone with a healthy understanding of composition II, economics, or simply running a household budget knows this is a lie. For example, we have a light bill, but we do not acknowledge the light bill. Yes, we will have more money in our pockets, but we won't have any electricity...which in the end, will cost us more money. We'd lose our food because the freezer will not run without electricity, for instance.
To the average viewer, this is a pretty boring conversation to have. It rests upon logical fallacies and economic talk. Neither of these things are ratings gold for liberal or conservative media. It is just more fun to focus on a beautiful, silly half-governor from Alaska and a senator's penis.
But my question is this: what will our love of people's personal lives -these national distractions -cost us in the future?
The coverage of the false arguments about the debt ceiling has been rather scant. Instead of focusing on Weiner's package, our outlets should have been focusing on the false connections made between employment and the debt ceiling. I am appalled at the way Republicans and conservatives misuse the press by repeatedly making rhetorical/argumentative errors that we learn to avoid in any debate or composition II class. And since these people have all had some sort of higher learning, I want to say that they do this by design. And since journalists have also gone to college, I want to say that they are not calling the culprits on their error by design. Why kill this argument and kill the ratings? Better yet, why have this argument and kill the ratings when Palin's stupidity and Weiner's penis are much more interesting to viewers?
Here is the false argument that the Right and Republicans repeatedly make: the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with employment, or economic growth. The debt ceiling is simply an acknowledgement of the bills we have to pay. That's it: to raise the debt ceiling is to acknowledge the nation's bills so that they may be paid. To constantly conflate the debt ceiling with economic growth or the need to decrease taxes on the rich or the need to cut social spending programs is to commit several non sequitur fallacies. One thing has almost nothing to do with the other, but may appear that way. It is like saying: "if we hold firm on the debt ceiling, the economy will bounce back." Anyone with a healthy understanding of composition II, economics, or simply running a household budget knows this is a lie. For example, we have a light bill, but we do not acknowledge the light bill. Yes, we will have more money in our pockets, but we won't have any electricity...which in the end, will cost us more money. We'd lose our food because the freezer will not run without electricity, for instance.
To the average viewer, this is a pretty boring conversation to have. It rests upon logical fallacies and economic talk. Neither of these things are ratings gold for liberal or conservative media. It is just more fun to focus on a beautiful, silly half-governor from Alaska and a senator's penis.
But my question is this: what will our love of people's personal lives -these national distractions -cost us in the future?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
"Islamic Terrorists" Should be Dropped from the Lexicon
We've heard two presidents, one Republican and the other Democratic, say that "we are not at war against Islam." I concur.
However, there's a phrase circulating around the media, sometimes from the mouths of our politicians and other government officials, to describe Osama bin Laden and his followers: "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic terrorists." I have serious concerns over those phrases.
First, our presidents can't keep saying that we're not at war against Islam, and then have the media and other officials use the adjective "Islamic" to describe the enemy. That adjective phrase makes null and void efforts to preach religious tolerance to the masses.
Second, our two spheres of philosophy, the Orient (East) and the Occident (West) have what's called Ur texts. These texts are the foundation for much of what is written or spoken in these respective societies. In the East, that text is the Holy Koran. In the West, it is the King James Bible. All laws, good stories, and yes, good movies are taken from some part of these texts. But just as law makers and myth makers use these texts to provide order to society as well as entertainment and moral instruction, so do people who are in simple quests for power and dominance.
Ever since Reconstruction, certain Americans have been terrorized by other Americans. The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan is filled with "Bible talk." They burn the cross to signify Christ, and kill in the name of God. However, I would not call these people, "Christian terrorists," though by the logic of the media concerning Al Qaeda, I could.
Just because Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other Eastern terror factions use the rhetoric of the Koran, it doesn't make them "Islamic terrorists." Just like their American counterparts, many of these leading terrorists find people who are young and idealistic, and maybe living in poverty, and use the words of the religion to turn them to evil. Much of what the Klan and Al Qaeda says cannot even be found in their foundational texts. For instance, the Bible specifically says that there is no male nor female no Greek nor Jew in the body of Christ. Yet, the Klan, by some twisted logic, has used the Bible to justify the torture and killing of innocent African Americans for decades. To make matters even worse, the Klan has whole churches, complete with their own Klan-inspired hymn books, dedicated to preaching hate and intolerance.
The Koran commands that women should be treated with respect and if a woman is due some sort of inheritance, she should have it. It commands that a widow be taken care of by family, even if that family is her husband's. Yet, the Taliban, by some twisted logic, has forbidden women by law to inherit property. In many countries, widowed women and children are left on the street to starve, since the Taliban has also forbidden women to work and attend school. Also, there is nothing in the Koran about blowing yourself to bits for heaven and 70 virgins.
See a pattern here? So call these people what they are: misguided people who have been influenced by power-hungry ego-maniacs. In my book, Osama Bin Laden is the same as Timothy McVeigh. Please don't conflate these two with religious leaders...of any sort. I just want the media to drop "Islamic" when describing these terrorists. Drop "Islamic" because the Klan is not "Christian."
However, there's a phrase circulating around the media, sometimes from the mouths of our politicians and other government officials, to describe Osama bin Laden and his followers: "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic terrorists." I have serious concerns over those phrases.
First, our presidents can't keep saying that we're not at war against Islam, and then have the media and other officials use the adjective "Islamic" to describe the enemy. That adjective phrase makes null and void efforts to preach religious tolerance to the masses.
Second, our two spheres of philosophy, the Orient (East) and the Occident (West) have what's called Ur texts. These texts are the foundation for much of what is written or spoken in these respective societies. In the East, that text is the Holy Koran. In the West, it is the King James Bible. All laws, good stories, and yes, good movies are taken from some part of these texts. But just as law makers and myth makers use these texts to provide order to society as well as entertainment and moral instruction, so do people who are in simple quests for power and dominance.
Ever since Reconstruction, certain Americans have been terrorized by other Americans. The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan is filled with "Bible talk." They burn the cross to signify Christ, and kill in the name of God. However, I would not call these people, "Christian terrorists," though by the logic of the media concerning Al Qaeda, I could.
Just because Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other Eastern terror factions use the rhetoric of the Koran, it doesn't make them "Islamic terrorists." Just like their American counterparts, many of these leading terrorists find people who are young and idealistic, and maybe living in poverty, and use the words of the religion to turn them to evil. Much of what the Klan and Al Qaeda says cannot even be found in their foundational texts. For instance, the Bible specifically says that there is no male nor female no Greek nor Jew in the body of Christ. Yet, the Klan, by some twisted logic, has used the Bible to justify the torture and killing of innocent African Americans for decades. To make matters even worse, the Klan has whole churches, complete with their own Klan-inspired hymn books, dedicated to preaching hate and intolerance.
The Koran commands that women should be treated with respect and if a woman is due some sort of inheritance, she should have it. It commands that a widow be taken care of by family, even if that family is her husband's. Yet, the Taliban, by some twisted logic, has forbidden women by law to inherit property. In many countries, widowed women and children are left on the street to starve, since the Taliban has also forbidden women to work and attend school. Also, there is nothing in the Koran about blowing yourself to bits for heaven and 70 virgins.
See a pattern here? So call these people what they are: misguided people who have been influenced by power-hungry ego-maniacs. In my book, Osama Bin Laden is the same as Timothy McVeigh. Please don't conflate these two with religious leaders...of any sort. I just want the media to drop "Islamic" when describing these terrorists. Drop "Islamic" because the Klan is not "Christian."
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The False Deification of Ronald Reagan: Whatever Happened to Republicans Like Ike?
As I listen to Republicans yell and scream about smaller government, balanced federal budgets, and lower taxes, I began to wonder when any Republican president ever balanced the budget. I know that Republicans have deified Reagan, holding up his presidency as the Holy Grail of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. But they know, as well as the general public knows, that this is all malarcky. As a kid of the 1980s, I don't recall Reagan's presidency being all that great.
As a matter of fact, I'm the child of a Vietnam veteran and a school cafeteria lady. Reagan's cuts to domestic funding for veterans and his trickle down economic policies were devastating to my family, and thousands of others like my family across America. He grew government, and increased the deficit to astounding proportions, the likes of which the world had never seen. However, through it all, he kept saying he believed in smaller government and lower taxes for all without actually implementing those beliefs.
My curiosity about the discrepancy between Republican rhetoric and the way they actually govern led me to a wild google search for the last Republican president to actually practice what he preached. That man, who is never mentioned by today's crazy, ubher-Right Wing, TEA Party Driven, birther infiltrated Republican Party was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yes, the last Republican to actually shrink government and balance the budget served when my mother was a toddler, from 1953-1961. As a leader, Eisenhower was a Republican's dream....A five-star general, a southerner, and former supreme NATO commander.
After reading several academic articles in Foreign Policy Magazine, and all of the valid google articles I could find, I wonder why more Republicans do not celebrate the fiscal genius of old Ike. It's probably because as a general and commander of the armed forces, Ike knew that no army can survive without the well-being of its foot soldiers. Yes, Ike did balance budget while avoiding killing job creation and overly-taxing the rich, and without making the poor and disadvantaged carry the entire country. Ike, though hesitant and conservative concerning racial issues at first, realized the danger inherent in oppressing such a large and important segment of the United States population. Like a true general, Ike saw unequal treatment as a national security threat, which is why he intervened in Little Rock. Also, Ike saw the REAL ramifications of being unwilling to compromise simply on ideological premises alone. Somewhere out there, real people suffer due to abstract arguments in Washington. He reached out to his Democratic Congress and worked to balance the budget. He even put defense on the table, and cut back on defense spending by opting for weapons that were slightly less expensive. He expanded many of the New Deal Policies, and invested in infrastructure by implementing an national interstate system program. Did I mention he also balanced the budget?
While Republicans try to justify giving gifts to their rich benefactors, and ask themselves what would Reagan do, I wonder why Ike's legacy, one of the greatest Republican presidents this country has ever seen, lies in the background collecting dust?
As a matter of fact, I'm the child of a Vietnam veteran and a school cafeteria lady. Reagan's cuts to domestic funding for veterans and his trickle down economic policies were devastating to my family, and thousands of others like my family across America. He grew government, and increased the deficit to astounding proportions, the likes of which the world had never seen. However, through it all, he kept saying he believed in smaller government and lower taxes for all without actually implementing those beliefs.
My curiosity about the discrepancy between Republican rhetoric and the way they actually govern led me to a wild google search for the last Republican president to actually practice what he preached. That man, who is never mentioned by today's crazy, ubher-Right Wing, TEA Party Driven, birther infiltrated Republican Party was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Yes, the last Republican to actually shrink government and balance the budget served when my mother was a toddler, from 1953-1961. As a leader, Eisenhower was a Republican's dream....A five-star general, a southerner, and former supreme NATO commander.
After reading several academic articles in Foreign Policy Magazine, and all of the valid google articles I could find, I wonder why more Republicans do not celebrate the fiscal genius of old Ike. It's probably because as a general and commander of the armed forces, Ike knew that no army can survive without the well-being of its foot soldiers. Yes, Ike did balance budget while avoiding killing job creation and overly-taxing the rich, and without making the poor and disadvantaged carry the entire country. Ike, though hesitant and conservative concerning racial issues at first, realized the danger inherent in oppressing such a large and important segment of the United States population. Like a true general, Ike saw unequal treatment as a national security threat, which is why he intervened in Little Rock. Also, Ike saw the REAL ramifications of being unwilling to compromise simply on ideological premises alone. Somewhere out there, real people suffer due to abstract arguments in Washington. He reached out to his Democratic Congress and worked to balance the budget. He even put defense on the table, and cut back on defense spending by opting for weapons that were slightly less expensive. He expanded many of the New Deal Policies, and invested in infrastructure by implementing an national interstate system program. Did I mention he also balanced the budget?
While Republicans try to justify giving gifts to their rich benefactors, and ask themselves what would Reagan do, I wonder why Ike's legacy, one of the greatest Republican presidents this country has ever seen, lies in the background collecting dust?
Friday, April 8, 2011
Immigration and Planned Parenthood Are Social Smoke Screens
As a woman, I am really alarmed at the assault on women's health that has been taking place since January 2011. But, I have to lay aside my emotions, and see things rationally: this Planned Parenthood debate, just like the immigration debate, is a social smoke screen.
Republicans have a pattern: whenever they are in trouble for their obvious hypocrisy, they raise a social issue. Republicans run on platforms -and win elections - based upon fiscal responsibility. Yet, once in office, they do the opposite. When the Right speaks of Ronald Reagan, they can never credit him with balancing the budget. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he ran up the biggest deficit and ran a bigger government than the country had previously known. He just kept saying that government should be smaller. He just kept saying that we needed to balance the budget. He never really did it. Instead, he distracted us with a war on drugs campaign. George W. Bush, who simply re-implemented Reagan-style trickle down economic policies. But in this world, a world with 24-hour news cycles and dozens of political commentary shows on the Right and the Left, he could not get away with it as easily as Reagan. People began to ask questions: how were we going to pay for two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the company, and a gift to the pharmaceutical companies via the Prescription Drug plan for seniors? If Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, they certainly did not actually govern that way. What did Bush do? Start a roaring debate on immigration.
Remember immigration? Remember the border patrol? Remember the fence the United States wanted between us and Mexico? Yeah. Whatever happened to that? Well, like I said, we live in a 24-hour news cycle society. Some political science professors simply got on some of the television shows and stated the obvious: if we were really serious about immigration reform, we'd simply punish the companies that employ illegal immigrants. Since many Republican lawmakers have financial interests in those businesses, they killed the debate they started. It really died when a camera crew visited Lamar Alexander, a represented from Tennessee and very vocal anti-immigration lawmaker, at a construction site. Yes, he owns a construction company. Who was working there? Illegal immigrants.
But, Planned Parenthood is safe. Those clinics are largely federally funded, and no one has any financial stakes in them. And, since it is illegal to federally fund abortions, this debate and possible defunding of Planned Parenthood, get the base all heated and upbraided without actually affecting abortion anyway. Perfect. And, and...these cuts affect only 12% of the entire budget. We have been focusing so narrowly on this 12% that we haven't asked a pivotal question: what the hell else is contained in the other 88% of the spending?
Republicans have a pattern: whenever they are in trouble for their obvious hypocrisy, they raise a social issue. Republicans run on platforms -and win elections - based upon fiscal responsibility. Yet, once in office, they do the opposite. When the Right speaks of Ronald Reagan, they can never credit him with balancing the budget. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he ran up the biggest deficit and ran a bigger government than the country had previously known. He just kept saying that government should be smaller. He just kept saying that we needed to balance the budget. He never really did it. Instead, he distracted us with a war on drugs campaign. George W. Bush, who simply re-implemented Reagan-style trickle down economic policies. But in this world, a world with 24-hour news cycles and dozens of political commentary shows on the Right and the Left, he could not get away with it as easily as Reagan. People began to ask questions: how were we going to pay for two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the company, and a gift to the pharmaceutical companies via the Prescription Drug plan for seniors? If Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, they certainly did not actually govern that way. What did Bush do? Start a roaring debate on immigration.
Remember immigration? Remember the border patrol? Remember the fence the United States wanted between us and Mexico? Yeah. Whatever happened to that? Well, like I said, we live in a 24-hour news cycle society. Some political science professors simply got on some of the television shows and stated the obvious: if we were really serious about immigration reform, we'd simply punish the companies that employ illegal immigrants. Since many Republican lawmakers have financial interests in those businesses, they killed the debate they started. It really died when a camera crew visited Lamar Alexander, a represented from Tennessee and very vocal anti-immigration lawmaker, at a construction site. Yes, he owns a construction company. Who was working there? Illegal immigrants.
But, Planned Parenthood is safe. Those clinics are largely federally funded, and no one has any financial stakes in them. And, since it is illegal to federally fund abortions, this debate and possible defunding of Planned Parenthood, get the base all heated and upbraided without actually affecting abortion anyway. Perfect. And, and...these cuts affect only 12% of the entire budget. We have been focusing so narrowly on this 12% that we haven't asked a pivotal question: what the hell else is contained in the other 88% of the spending?
Monday, March 21, 2011
What's With the Politicization of Education
One of the easiest ways to oppress a people is to systematically deny them a quality education. One of the easiest ways to systematically deny people a quality education is to defund education. One of the easiest way to hide the racist/classist/elitist motives behind defunding education is through subterfuge and opacity. Thus, we have the modern-day American educational system.
N'gugi wa Thiong'o once said that after the canons of the night came the chalkboard of the morning, and of the two, clearly the chalkboard has been most effective in colonizing the mind. That may be true of the British colonial educational systems left behind in Anglophone Africa and Caribbean nations. America, however, operates by a different strategy. Simply keep people stupid. Keep people stupid concerning the real history of America. Keep people stupid concerning how policy eventually effects the pocketbook. Keep people stupid by using confusing and emotionally-charged rhetoric that will guarantee the person using it that he/she will get poor white people to vote against their own interests.
So far, this has been the Southern/conservative/Republican strategy. There is a reason why they always rally against the national department of education -as if it matters in the first place. Heaven forbid if the American public receives a real education and political discourse must be elevated past anti-intellectual gabble. How would they ever win office? Would the governor of Wisconsin have won office had he explained that he'd be a union-busting corporate pawn? Probably not. So he used flowery languaged and slipped one past the people of Wisconsin, and now they are sorry.
As a person who is pursuing a degree in the humanities, I am also the victim of Americans' beliefs that the only professions are in law and medicine. When was the last time you saw a riveting television drama about a history professor? An English degree? It's just a big waste of time, and I feel that from most of my friends who are outside of the humanities. I have a friend who is an education major that I love dearly, but every time I talk to him concerning what it is that I do, I get a hint of condescension from him. They feel that our degrees do nothing practical. I say that they have everything to do with practicality. It's the reason why humanities professors, and not business, law, or education professors, are perpetually listed by Conservative think tanks as the most dangerous intellectuals in America: we PURPOSELY expose the politicization of America's educational system. When we see the state of Texas literally try to rewrite American history, stripping it of the ugly truths it contains, we are not afraid to say that the educational system here (sadly) serves the same purpose as those of the imperialist European nations: to keep certain races and classes at the bottom, and to maintain an elite hegemony.
N'gugi wa Thiong'o once said that after the canons of the night came the chalkboard of the morning, and of the two, clearly the chalkboard has been most effective in colonizing the mind. That may be true of the British colonial educational systems left behind in Anglophone Africa and Caribbean nations. America, however, operates by a different strategy. Simply keep people stupid. Keep people stupid concerning the real history of America. Keep people stupid concerning how policy eventually effects the pocketbook. Keep people stupid by using confusing and emotionally-charged rhetoric that will guarantee the person using it that he/she will get poor white people to vote against their own interests.
So far, this has been the Southern/conservative/Republican strategy. There is a reason why they always rally against the national department of education -as if it matters in the first place. Heaven forbid if the American public receives a real education and political discourse must be elevated past anti-intellectual gabble. How would they ever win office? Would the governor of Wisconsin have won office had he explained that he'd be a union-busting corporate pawn? Probably not. So he used flowery languaged and slipped one past the people of Wisconsin, and now they are sorry.
As a person who is pursuing a degree in the humanities, I am also the victim of Americans' beliefs that the only professions are in law and medicine. When was the last time you saw a riveting television drama about a history professor? An English degree? It's just a big waste of time, and I feel that from most of my friends who are outside of the humanities. I have a friend who is an education major that I love dearly, but every time I talk to him concerning what it is that I do, I get a hint of condescension from him. They feel that our degrees do nothing practical. I say that they have everything to do with practicality. It's the reason why humanities professors, and not business, law, or education professors, are perpetually listed by Conservative think tanks as the most dangerous intellectuals in America: we PURPOSELY expose the politicization of America's educational system. When we see the state of Texas literally try to rewrite American history, stripping it of the ugly truths it contains, we are not afraid to say that the educational system here (sadly) serves the same purpose as those of the imperialist European nations: to keep certain races and classes at the bottom, and to maintain an elite hegemony.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Words DO Mean Something
Words mean everything to me. They have to, I'm attempting a Ph.D. in English. And even though some may call me melodramatic, the recent shooting of a United States Congresswoman should prove that there's something behind my bombast.
I'm not trying to be too cold here, but Saturday's shooting was no surprise to me. With today's gun rhetoric and political labeling, I'm only surprised that it didn't happen sooner. I'm not playing the blame game here. As a student of history, violence can come from the Left and the Right. Indeed, there was a time in this counry when most of the violence came from the Left via war protests and bombings.
However, with 95% of talk radio time being consumed by the Right, it is safe to say that most of the gun talk and revolutionary rhetoric comes from the Right. Just listen to the hate-filled speech of Rush Limbaugh and the gun play of Palin. To some, what they say is just red meat for the base. To them, I personally believe that their talk is just a way to make $12 million in one quarter. To some psychopathic fringe elements, their words are God-sent gifts. Their words give them a way to dehumanize people who don't agree with them. Crosshairs on a map become real political targets. People become enemies. Enemies that must be snuffed out by any violent means necessary.
Ironically, Right-Wing Conservatives play down the importance of words. Some even advocate the eradication of English departments across America; afterall, we don't DO anything productive for our societies. We only deal with the words of dead men and the bitter ones of living minorities. Thereby, we poison the minds of the youth of America, with words.
What then, after this horrible tragedy has occurred, do we call the hate-filled, fear-inducing rhetoric of someone like Glenn Beck? Even more dangerous, gun lobbyists, with words, successfully lobbied Congress to let the assault weapons bans to expire. What words, following this horrific act, will convince our conservative public servants to place a stricter ban on assault weapons that could more than likely harm or kill them?
I'm not trying to be too cold here, but Saturday's shooting was no surprise to me. With today's gun rhetoric and political labeling, I'm only surprised that it didn't happen sooner. I'm not playing the blame game here. As a student of history, violence can come from the Left and the Right. Indeed, there was a time in this counry when most of the violence came from the Left via war protests and bombings.
However, with 95% of talk radio time being consumed by the Right, it is safe to say that most of the gun talk and revolutionary rhetoric comes from the Right. Just listen to the hate-filled speech of Rush Limbaugh and the gun play of Palin. To some, what they say is just red meat for the base. To them, I personally believe that their talk is just a way to make $12 million in one quarter. To some psychopathic fringe elements, their words are God-sent gifts. Their words give them a way to dehumanize people who don't agree with them. Crosshairs on a map become real political targets. People become enemies. Enemies that must be snuffed out by any violent means necessary.
Ironically, Right-Wing Conservatives play down the importance of words. Some even advocate the eradication of English departments across America; afterall, we don't DO anything productive for our societies. We only deal with the words of dead men and the bitter ones of living minorities. Thereby, we poison the minds of the youth of America, with words.
What then, after this horrible tragedy has occurred, do we call the hate-filled, fear-inducing rhetoric of someone like Glenn Beck? Even more dangerous, gun lobbyists, with words, successfully lobbied Congress to let the assault weapons bans to expire. What words, following this horrific act, will convince our conservative public servants to place a stricter ban on assault weapons that could more than likely harm or kill them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)