nw art planet music politics science history thought fun meta

16 Comments »

1. SkyHarbor wrote,
   

   Most tend to perceive the political spectrum as a linear continuum, from far Left to far Right… But in many ways, it’s an ‘Ouroboros’, the snake that eats its own tail…

   Because both extremes have much in common: they are ABSOLUTISTS, rigid ‘believers’ who brook NO dissent or discussion. They are both militant, ruthless and tend strongly to paranoia.

   Were the Bolsheviks and the Nazis REALLY so different? Are Islamic Jihadis and Fundamentalist Christians?

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 5:40 am

2. Cat-eyes wrote,
   

   re: “this atrocity came from exactly the opposite end of the religious-political spectrum”

   This is incorrect – they came from exactly the same end of the religious-political spectrum – the only difference is in which version of this holy-terror version of a god they endorse.

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 5:57 am

3. SkyHarbor wrote,
   

   Cat-eyes: You are of course correct. As usual. Mea culpa. Thus my clarification in comment #1 which sort of ‘takes back’ my rash initial statement.

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 6:00 am

4. SkyHarbor wrote,
   

   Cat-eyes: ‘Holy-Terror’ is exactly the right way to put it!

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 6:21 am

5. byronius wrote,
   

   I liked his listing of ‘Suicidal Humanists’ alongside those evil Marxists. With their little evil smiley-face symbol.

   Someone had to spoon-feed this ultra-sick man his weird little world. And I do mean weird. Genetic-switch genocidals popping up, ready for programming –

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 9:47 am

6. SkyHarbor wrote,
   

   I hesitate to include the following link to Anders Breivik’s actual 2083 ‘manifesto’, and if Max feels it is inappropriate, I will not object if he deletes it.

   But it is my belief that it’s important to ‘know your enemy’… Had more non-Germans bothered to read ‘Mein Kampf’ back in the 1920′s and ’30′s, Europe just might have been spared the grief of WWII.

   I don’t put this drivel on that level of course, but you never know. I’ve only briefly scanned this lengthy and rambling hate/fear-fest. Some appears to be plagiarised from the Unabomber’s manifesto and seems to have a somewhat similar White/Christian agenda. (‘Andrew Berwick’ is an Anglicised version of Anders Breivik)

   DISCLAIMER: I vehemently disagree with and am repulsed by the views expressed in the following document. I am not recommending it to ANYONE.

   
   click to download the ‘manifesto’ (pdf)

   We know Breivik is not alone in his twisted views. Perhaps the investigation of this ghastly crime and the perpetrator’s trial will shed some light on just how widespread this ideological cancer is.

   As you may know, there is a large Norwegian-American population in Seattle, many residing in the Ballard neighbourhood, so there are a lot of grief-stricken folks up here too. The nearby Royal Norwegian Consulate is closed in the wake of the tragedy, but this bouquet was left by the front door…

   

   On a more hopeful and positive note, I found this at a Norwegian site, helpfully expressed in English:

   

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

7. Begemotya wrote,
   

   Eeeeewww, that’s truly nasty. I feel like I’ve just listened to 20 minutes of the Glenn Beck Program. Excuse me while I go take a shower . . .

   Actually though, it’s no joke. Byro’s comment in #5 is exactly right: these ridiculous notions (I wouldn’t dignify them by calling them “ideas”) come from somewhere, and it’s not difficult to see where. Listen to any given hlf hour of Beck, or Michael Savage (yes, he’s still out there), or Laura Ingraham, or Rush, or Hannity, and you will hear rants that are not one speck less insane, ignorant, paranoid, and intellectually vaccuous, as the idiotic blather in this video. Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kozcynski also got their ideas from ranting madmen like these, filtered through the lens of their own psychoses. The problem is, in the US these professional demagogues are allowed to spew their vicious lies day and night, and are even granted broad legitimacy from Republican leaders. (Last Friday John Boehner went on Limbaugh to deny the vile rumor that there was any compromise in the works about the debt ceiling. And anyone remember Dick Cheney’s many appearances on Hannity?) What, limit their free speech? Fuck yeah!

   The danger of this depraved psychotic freak Breivik is obvious both from his rantings on their face, and especially after the fact of this atrocity. So why does no one in the anti-terrorist law-enforcement arena take the barking-mad rantings of Beck et al equally seriously?

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

8. SkyHarbor wrote,
   

   Before Reagan deregulated the FCC in the 1980′s, a radio or television network was REQUIRED to operate in ‘the public interest’, and the reactionary vitriol and diatribe such as Begemotya describes would simply NOT be allowed for fear of losing their operating licenses. OTOH, CABLE networks do NOT require an FCC license anyway…

   The ongoing Rupert Murdoch Newscorp scandal illustrates quite well what can happen. Murdoch’s ‘Faux News’ sponsors most of the vile ‘commentators’ Begemotya mentions… The frightening thing to me is that there is clearly a BIG AUDIENCE for these clowns and their hate-and-intolerance-filled message, and that is SCARY indeed!

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

9. Anonymous wrote,
   

   There are common threads that run through all of this madness. Ignorance and the greed that feeds off it.

   Comment on July 25, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

10. Cat-eyes wrote,
    

    Okay – I do realize that this argument would never succeed if heard by the present bench but I do believe that much of the aforementioned vitriol doesn’t fall under and therefore should not be protected by the free speech amendment. The reasoning is pretty straight forward: basically the same reason that a person is not allowed to falsely yell “FIRE” in a theatre or other venue, because it is 1) False, 2) Endangers innocent people both directly and indirectly, 3) harms the economy by both frightening legitimate claims and encouraging copycats from a lack of official action, and 4) costs the taxpayers money to protect against false claims. There are likely other reasons as well but these just fall into clarity. Insofar as endangering the people directly it should be obvious. Palin places rifle scopes over people she dislikes and lo and behold one innocent government official and several innocent bystanders are shot and some killed. She denies any culpability under the first amendment. This is the same as someone who yells fire in a theatre defending their action by the statement, well, I didn’t force anyone to run out. Indirectly this is possibly more harmful. The domino effect of suffering is difficult to measure; first the families of those directly affected; then the witnesses; then the constituents (by being deprived of representation by their chosen representative); the country itself and finally the entire globe. Very true that there is a diminishing intensity in this propagation of suffering but the cumulative amount given the number of people involved must be enormous. Since this world is so driven by money the third and fourth points might be the most salient to the dumbf*cks behind the money wheel. And the first point, that it is false, well, the best argument here comes from Palin’s own religious dogma. The obvious one first, “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20:13. Of course her defense is identical to the Nazi’s in the Nuremberg Trials – but I didn’t do it directly. However this defense was given no credence then and it shouldn’t now. Even more though, – “Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil,” Proverbs 12:20 – “The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways,” Proverbs 14:14 – and “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” James 1:26

    She should be very afraid.

    Comment on July 26, 2011 @ 7:31 am

11. Demonweed wrote,
    

    As I ponder this sort of problem, I see the solution as a function of mental health policy. I believe in an ideal society, it would be normal for adolescents to be tested not only for scholastic aptitude but also for an assortment of predispositions that make them dangers to themselves or others. Among these red flags that could warrant constructive intervention would be the most extreme manifestations of bigotry, militancy, and tribalism.

    Treating crazy people like they were actually crazy would be helpful on two levels. For the next generation of Ted Kaczynskis and Timothy McVeighs, it means they would get the counseling and medication needed to maintain useful connections with reality. Metaphysical perfection is unobtainable, but this sort of intervention is orders of magnitude better than the “people are people” shrug of the status quo. Also, if it were more obvious that being wildly schizophrenic is unhealthy, then this whole “I have a special understanding of events that the ‘lamestream media’ just doesn’t get” nonsense would be much less popular. A small amount of spending on assistance and possibly containment for our most dangerous nut cases could translate into a large increase in the sensibility of political discourse.

    That said, yeah, I also wholeheartedly support a return to 1970s policies when it comes to media licensing. Once upon a time, news departments ate into broadcasters’ profits because keeping on the air meant proving to the FCC that your outfit was making sacrifices that served the general public good. When Reagan’s flunkies redefined “in the public interest” as “whatever the public is interested in” (i.e. whatever gets ratings,) FCC folders became all about Arbitron or Neilsen reports. If we required much more public service from these privileged elites than filling gaps in their ad blocks with PSAs, we might see less infotainment and more hard news back on the air. If there was a means to expand the FCC’s mandate to include more control over media that does not rely on broadcast airwaves, the means would exist to advantage an outfit like CurrentTV and disadvantage an outfit like Fox News. It is a far cry from the sanity of Canadian anti-Murdoch policy, but it would still be a huge step toward a better tomorrow.

    Comment on July 26, 2011 @ 8:00 am

12. SkyHarbor wrote,
    

    Apparently, Glenn Beck on his radio program yesterday equated the Norwegian Labour Party summer camp which was attacked on Friday as “some sort of ‘Hitler Youth’ camp”… Now THAT’S hateful and incendiary! (never mind that if anything, it’s Breivik who is the Nazi)

    Many media observers give people like Beck and Rush Limbaugh a pass, calling them ‘entertainers’ rather than serious political commentators. But try to explain that to the millions of ‘ditto-heads’ who listen to this hateful blather every day, and indeed DO take it VERY seriously!

    I find myself on the fence as to whether this sort of bilge is protected under the First Amendment or not… But if Nazis marching in the Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois is Free Speech (which the court ruled it WAS, although the march was fortunately cancelled), then I suppose Beck, Limbaugh and even the ’2083 manifesto’ is Free Speech as well, hateful as it is. The doctrine of Free Speech only means anything when we allow it when it is hateful and disgusting to us! So on balance, I guess would have to say that it IS protected. Is the ‘Turner Diaries’ incendiary? Yes, it IS… but we tend to frown on book burning in this country, and overall, I agree with that position, as repugnant as it may often be.

    There used to be laws prohibiting newspaper owners from owning TV and radio stations, and there was a limit on how many media outlets of any kind one company could own. I think those laws should be re-enacted. The Murdoch ‘empire’ threatens to monopolise media and blanket a large segment of a population with a certain political and cultural viewpoint. That IS dangerous and should be prohibited.

    I also admire Canada’s stance on this and I find the CBC news to be truly ‘fair and balanced’… I also admire Canada’s much more welcoming immigration policies.

    Comment on July 26, 2011 @ 10:40 am

13. Cat-eyes wrote,
    

    An interesting and informative summary of the media’s reaction can be found here:
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/media-reacts-news-norwegian-terror-suspect-isnt-muslim/40322/

    It discusses the knee jerk reaction that immediately blamed Muslims.

    Comment on July 30, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

14. SkyHarbor wrote,
    

    Good article… I’m glad somebody took the trouble to point out and document how vulnerable we are to jumping to unjustified conclusions…

    I was watching CNN (as usual) when the news first broke about the Oslo blast, they also immediately assumed it must be a Jihadi attack… And to be honest, so did I… remembering the cartoon portraying Muhammed, first published in Denmark but reprinted in the Oslo papers which had so enraged many devout Muslims…

    Bill Maher, on his show last night, made the similar observation that while we always refer to Muslim Jihadis as ‘terrorists’, the various news sources (on both sides of the pond) have been loathe to call Breivik what he IS: a Christian TERRORIST, betraying our double standard.

    Comment on July 30, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

15. Demonweed wrote,
    

    Especially unfortunate is this quirk of how mouth-breathers think. People like Limbaugh and O’Reilly are fond of taking out of context the most lunatic ravings of Islamic extremists, stirring up American audiences with analysis like “they think we’re all subhuman monsters that must be destroyed, and they’re even willing to bomb each other just to make their point!!!” This event will add fuel to the fire so that the Middle Eastern equivalents of Limbaugh and O’Reilly can say, “look at those Christians. They think we’re all subhuman monsters that must be destroyed, and they’re even willing to bomb each other just to make their point!!!”

    Of course, everyone actively commenting on this blog understands that the actual problem is the voting behavior of the mouth-breathers coupled with the astonishing union of stupidity and dishonesty one sees from dittohead opinion leaders. The problem is extremism itself — not which particular ancient storybook is twisted to support the cause of extremism. In spite of how important and obvious this truth is, I’m not sure just how one goes about getting the mouth-breathers to absorb it, let alone act upon the truth therein.

    Comment on July 31, 2011 @ 6:13 am

16. SkyHarbor wrote,
    

    Part of the problem I’m afraid is the media itself… ‘Back in the day’ it was called the ‘yellow press’. Today it’s ‘if it bleeds it leads’… Lurid, spectacular and/or scandalous or murderous. If it’s on radio/TV/web/newsprint, the fact REMAINS – that the more outrageous and/or horrendous it is, the better it SELLS. And after all, these media sources are in business to make MONEY!

    The recent and continuing Murdoch scandal shows the extent that many will go to to get the ‘scoop’. Inflammatory headlines and statements simply SELL.

    Those of us with a mind and heart cringe and turn away when a horrible incident occurs and some ‘journalist’ shoves a microphone in the face of a shocked and grieving family member and asks things like “How does losing your children make you FEEL??”… which can only and DOES appeal to the very lowest common denominator… the ‘bottom-feeders’ or ‘mouth-breathers’ as Demonweed put it…

    There has always been extremism, and it’s also always been exacerbated by tough economic times… and most of the profit driven media to their discredit have chosen to fan the flames in the name of advertising revenues.

    There was a time (into the early 1970′s) when all three American television networks ran their news divisions at a LOSS, as a PUBLIC SERVICE per the conditions of FCC licensing… CNN and other cable/satellite news (like Faux News) came along when some bright bulb in accounting realised that “hey, we can make a PROFIT here!!”… the rest as they say, is history.

    On the off chance that you haven’t seen it, I recommend the film “Good Night and Good Luck”, giving an insight into reporter Edward R. Murrow and CBS news in the early 1950′s. A cautionary tale about what TV news once WAS and what it SHOULD BE. Sadly for reportage, those days are long gone.

    The ‘truth is still out there’ so to speak, but it requires more discernment on the part of the news consumer to FIND it.

    Comment on July 31, 2011 @ 8:33 am

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

• Dig