>Nut Allergies

>Here’s where I apologize to my readers for politicizing something that shouldn’t have been politicized. John Patrick Beddell suffered from bipolar disorder, a brutal disease that knows no politics. I was wrong to label him a right-wing nut.

I jumped on that Christian Science Monitor story because frankly I was pissed off. Pissed off that we had yet another senseless shooting, pissed that yet another unhinged person managed to get their hands on a gun, pissed that yet another symbol of the United States government was targeted. After weeks of wall to wall media coverage of the conservative hate fests known as the Tea Party Convention and CPAC, both of which peddled in paranoia about birth certificates, immigrants, America-hating liberal “socialists,” death panels, terrorists, etc., I reacted. So I’m sorry.

And here’s where I piss you all off again.

If this incident proves anything it’s that everyone has nut allergies. No one wants to claim their nuts, and it’s been interesting to see where people draw the line here. Beddell espoused virulent anti-government views on his podcasts and politically claimed Libertarian affiliations. So we lefties have labeled him a right-winger.

Meanwhile, the right-wingers claim that because he was a 9/11 Truther, he must have been a lefty. As an aside, it’s news to me that 9/11 Truthers are lefties–we’ve always associated the 9/11 Truthers with the far right fringe–the anti-Semitic, Stormfront, Klan crowd who claim Jews were tipped off not to go to work at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. And for crying out loud, the Tea Party candidate for Texas governor was a Truther. So I learned that no one wants to claim the Truthers, either.

So listen, folks. I’ll be the first to admit when I’m wrong but that street goes both ways. John Patrick Beddell suffered from mental illness, end of story. So did all of them, that’s obvious. I mean, anyone who does something irrational like shooting up a Unitarian Universalist Church production of “Annie” because they hate liberals is nuts. But it seems to me that we have more nuts getting off their sofas and actually taking action these days. And I have to wonder why that is.

We live in a time where there’s inflammatory hate speech dominating the airwaves and the vast majority of it is coming from the right. Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and the rest pollute the airwaves on a daily basis with outlandish lies blaming Democrats, liberals, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi etc. with every imaginable sin against God and country. I don’t see anyone standing up to that, in fact, your politicians have embraced it.

So I want to see a scintilla of responsibility from your side of the aisle. Your grassroots movement is hawking stuff like this, and your protestors are showing up with signs like this one (and they aren’t even true since several of you made a point of bringing your warm gun to an anti-government protest). Your leadership conference features a Pelosi pinata and Harry Reid punching bag. You’re breeding paranoia, filling peoples’ heads with bizarre conspiracy theories about FEMA re-education camps and the U.S. Census and claiming liberals are attacking Christianity and all sorts of irresponsible crap that isn’t remotely true. No one on the right has said that any of this goes too far, in fact, y’all are pumping your fists in the air going “fuck yeah!”

So don’t act shocked when your movement gets blamed when someone of any political stripe goes off the deep end. Y’all need to dial back your rhetoric a couple notches.

About these ads

32 Comments

Filed under liberals, politics, right-wing hate

32 responses to “>Nut Allergies

  1. >This whole meme about a well-armed populace keeping the government in check, now an active call to violent revolution has been pissing me off pretty much since Ruby Ridge. And Waco too. Armed revolution is also treason. I have no idea what the fuck Jefferson was talking about with the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants, but I'm wishing he never said it now.

  2. >Thanks for a great post. You described the whole crazy debate perfectly.I would like to see a more sensible country where guys like that can't easily get guns.

  3. >I was hoping that particular demographic would go all genuine Dale Gribble in 2010. What does a lefty have to do to make birthbaggers run from that friendly census temp?A good undercounting of these people might make up for their literally incredible (2 million!!!!one!!!) numbers in the media.

  4. >That would be an awesome apology, if you were 6 years old. "I'm sorry, but they made me do it" works well when you are an adolescent, not so well later in life.If you want to see a scintella of responsibility from those on the other side of the aisle, then take some responsibility your self for the crap the left wing said and did in the prior eight years. Beginning with the myth of a stolen Presidential election, to the politicization of a war and the constant belittling of the opposition party, you guys have been right in there. Don't be surprised when the right borrows your playbppl and throws if back at you.

  5. >First, I don't like it that the first thing EVERYone does when the shit hits the fan is to look to see how the murderer/crazed gunman/woman voted. I think we can all admit that liberals commonly refer to these types of criminals/terrorists with a kneejerk reaction label of rightwing. However, I think we can also admit that, generally speaking, IF politics/social philosophy IS an issue, the criminal is generally speaking not a pacifist, pro-choice, secular humanist liberal. Nonetheless, I think it is unnecessary and dangerous to turn everything into a political fingerpointing moment. Yes, in some situations (i.e. Knoxville) it is necessary. And yes, when you have a group that is advocating armed insurrection, it is appropriate to question their tactics as well as assign responsibility when such is earned. But sometimes it belittles the gravity of a terrible situation. So I thank SoBe for her retractions and apology. Takes balls, and is something one rarely sees on the webs.And WOW, anon 2. Someone missed the point. 'We'll quit waving guns, threatening treason, and foaming at the mouth when you quit criticizing conservative policies'? WTF?As if the 'myth' of Bush v. Gore = the Birther movement.As if criticizing military actions = threatening insurrection.As if celebrating the end of the Bush era = demanding the impeachment of a sitting president without any understanding of the process or any sound argument as to why impeachment is justified.I take responsibility for my actions. If I align myself with a particular group, then that group's actions reflect on me. But just because I am not like you, that does NOT mean that I represent everything you hate. Get a grip. If you are a sign wavin' teabagging, violence advocating insurrectionist OR if you hang out with and support such, then the post applies to you. If not, then enough of the fake righteous indignation.

  6. >Not much to apologize for SB. We live in an age which empowers and emboldens the extremes of just about everything. Extreme politics is almost a sport in the USA — glorifying and encouraging irrational thrillseekers. Sure the guy was nuts. Jesus, he drove 3000 miles to shoot a couple guys and then get killed himself – he was nuts. The sticky thing is he was, rightly or wrongly, sanely or insanely, nuts or not, USING VIOLENCE TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. I don't care if he was right-wing or left-wing, he was probably encouraged and incited to action by irresponsible people spouting inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Had he killed, the victims wouldn't have given a damn if he was a rightwing nut, a leftwing nut or a freakin' walnut, they're still gonna be dead. So how about we recognize the CRIME for what it is and let the labels of who he was come later.

  7. >And you didn't he realize he was bipolar before you labeled him a "right-wing nutjob terorist"?Crazy is crazy, regardless of political affiliation.

  8. >We do agree that this nutcase is nobody's nutcase. But Dennis the Peasant beat both of us to that conclusion.For the rest of your post, we on the right still owe you leftists for the 8 years of Booooooshitlerrovecheneyhatehatehate crap you dished out; stop wondering why we're so hard on your poor lil' innocent dirty socialist prezzidint.Believe me, he's earn every bit of what he's getting. And we're just getting warmed up.

  9. >this crock about obsessive compulsive bs. what a crock that is in itself. power trips galore. lol this nut was dangerous because he had a GUN, not because he had a OC disorer. it was because he listened to some nut tell him it is his personal duty and obligation to "fix America". notice who he shot at and why and you can easily see how left or right this GUN nut was!. the right is so full of GUNnuts, i would think there'd be a better chance he'd be one of THEM!!

  10. >I think we should seriously blame Mike W. for this one. He supports more lax gun laws and opposes the kinds of checks and restrictions that would keep gun availability down. Guys like Mike shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too. If they don't want to be inconvenienced in their precious "rights," then they should accept partial responsibility for the fallout.I started out joking but then I got serious. What do you think?

  11. >"For the rest of your post, we on the right still owe you leftists for the 8 years of Booooooshitlerrovecheneyhatehatehate crap you dished out; stop wondering why we're so hard on your poor lil' innocent dirty socialist prezzidint."Oh, definitely. Because Bushco, while squandering blood, treasure and goodwill in the two wars IT started; flouting international law and engaging in war crimes–still managed to gut substantial portions of our rights here at home. Thank GOD they had the good sense to leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

  12. >@ serratedFUCK YOU RATFACE

  13. >Democommie, out of the crapper and back in the blogosphere? Couldn't you have stayed in your hovel and continued to rot and fester? Are you still attached to "JC_Christian"'s …payroll?Oh, and did you sleep through last Friday night, when Baracky signed an extension to President George Bush's Patriot Act? I think your drug dealer was specifically mentioned…CAN YOU DIG IT??

  14. >Flying 50-yo. Junior Samples-looking twit, you could never say that to my face. You're a disgrace to your mother's runny cunt.

  15. >One of the biggest challenges we face as a country is that our language isn't used to talk WITH each other anymore, we only know how to talk AT one another. We fail, on many levels, to communicate with each other. We assume more than we know, and we let curiosity get the best of us. I've always seen the dual level that exists between the 9/11 truthers. What I know is that the independent study that wasn't given full access said they aren't sure what happened, look at this mess the cowboy left us.

  16. >By the quality level of the posts, I see SB's blog is turning into a WalMart parking lot screaming match between bug-eyed guys wearing green plaid shirts with rips and pop-eyed guys wearing blue plaid shirts with holes.

  17. >Oh, and did you sleep through last Friday night, when Baracky signed an extension to President George Bush's Patriot Act?Actually, progressives are up in arms over that. I have to say, if we are comparing the two sides, liberals are far more critical of Obama and Congressional Dems than conservatives ever were under 8 years of Bush. Have you read some of the stuff over at FDL, DemocraticUnderground, Glenn Greenwald, Krugman? Jane Hamsher has turned FDL into her personal battlefield against the president and every Democrat to the right of Kucinich.All we got from Malkin, Kristol, LGF and Red State during 8 years of Bush was "clap louder" and "OMG the terriss are coming we're all gonna dieeeeee!"

  18. >It does no good that influential figures like Glenn Beck engage in eliminationist rhetoric. Neither does it advance the best interests of our society that national political figures gin up the spectres of fascism, socialism, and communism, often in the same breath.Imagine if you will someone with the stones to have shown up at a Bush rally packing an AR-15 over his shoulder or a Glock strapped to his thigh, even though they would have been penned up in a free-speech zone miles away.Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks put it this way, regarding the AR-15 packing protester only a short distance from the rally attended by Obama: What if there had been a hundred of them?

  19. >Semi, if there had been 100 of them thar armed citizens, the President would've been the safest he's ever been. We aren't like you.(Oh, and did you know that the fellow who packed that AR-15 to BHO's speech was black?)Beale, all that the re-upping of the so-called 'Patriot Act' by the farthest-left politico who's set foot in the White House ever means is that Bush was right all along. Also, he was right about Guantanamo. And he was right about trying these nonexistent terrorists (who somehow still want to blow us up) in a military tribunal. And about many other things as well, Bush was right.BHO got into office, learned some intelligence you lefties aren't privy to (things that fly in the face of your desired social revolution to nirvana on Earth), and changed his tune.Who knew?OH, and TANSTAAFL~!

  20. >The nicest thing about Siridiot's comments is his wonderfully colorful use of the mother tongue.A racist, a bigot, a man who is so frightened of the "other" that he derives justifcation and solace from the rantings of his drug addled and delusional mentors Limbaugh and Beck–cursing and foul language are certainly the least of his problems.

  21. >the politicization of a war This is pretty fucking hilarious. How on earth is a war not political?Besides which, the right had no problem "politicizing" Clinton's wars (which I didn't support either, BTW). See here, for starters.And don't get me started on the goddamn Bund.

  22. >Heh, Democommies characterization of "Serr8d" sounds exactly like Democommie himself.Projection? You bet!

  23. >mikey:Please, by all means point out my racism. Here's bigotry's definition–from one source:"nounIrrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion"I have a rational suspicion of and a strong dislike for folks, like you, whose only concern is for their own welfare and who will cling to those beliefs, that in their tiny minds, justify socially aberrant behavior and social irresponsibility in the face of logic.

  24. >If they don't want to be inconvenienced in their precious "rights," then they should accept partial responsibility for the fallout.Do you own a camera and a computer MikeB? If so then shouldn't you accept partial responsibility for the proliferation of child porn?Sure, you and millions of others use those tools responsibly, but since some people criminally misuse them I think you should accept responsibility for their actions and be "inconvenienced"Do you drink alcohol? Do you oppose prohibition? If so then you share responsibility for every alcohol related death or assault in this countryHell, you, Demo, and SoBeale all publish blogs. Should you all be subject to "reasonable regulations" of your speech on your blogs because others use theirs to commit libel & slander? How about a license, fee, and competency test before you can write a blog post? Or a word limit on posts? or perhaps a "one post a month law"After all, those "reasonable regulations" might reduce libel and slander on blogs, so you should accept them without question and quit whining about your "rights"………..

  25. >justify socially aberrant behavior and social irresponsibility in the face of logic.1. Explain how your positions are logical.2. Explain how my supporting the lawful exercise of a Constitutionally Protected Right equates to justifying "socially aberrant behavior and social irresponsibility"Or are you claiming that people who exercise their rights in a manner you disagree with (or exercise a right you don't like) are engaging in "socially aberrant behavior" and being "socially irresponsible?"

  26. >Mike W, I must take issue with your complete ignorance. Maybe it's just an issue of your example being not only poor, but counter to the point you're trying to make…but:"Do you drink alcohol? Do you oppose prohibition? If so then you share responsibility for every alcohol related death or assault in this country"This question is phrased as if prohibition didn't kill people by itself, and the fact that prohibition never really happened, the market went underground. If you're actually ignorant enough to think that creating a law means you change society overnight means you have no concept of what laws are supposed to do. You cannot compare this kind of social regulation to the kind of financial regulation we need. Laws that affect the physical world are completely different from those that affect the virtual world, and even the same law can change each world independently. If you made a law banning a certain type of virtual product…or else [insert punishment]…it's far stronger than telling someone in the real world to quit drinking in their own home…or else we throw you in jail. It also sets clear standards, and consumers will know what to avoid in the market if they have half a brain.Your train of thought seems to be along the lines of Chief Justice Roberts, that if the technology exists to create a problem the entire technology should be banned until we can adapt it to our current world view. Your concept of a "Constitutionally Protected Right" is only limited to what GOVERNMENT can do to you. I can put duct tape over your mouth to stop you from using your first amendment, or delete your comments from my own blog (this is not my blog), but you cannot complain to the government that I infringed on your constitutional rights because between you and me there are none, only between us and the government.So anyway, carry on with your "socially aberrant behavior" nonsense. It's too broad a term to give you any definite answer, but that's your point isn't it?

  27. >Watchout – I know that. My comment was sarcasm aimed at showing how absurd MikeB's position is.I was applying MikeB's ignorant position to other things (like alcohol & prohibition) in order to shed light on how weak his position is.If you're actually ignorant enough to think that creating a law means you change society overnight means you have no concept of what laws are supposed to do. I'm not. It's folks like MikeB, Demo and SoBeale who live by the "let's just pass more laws" creed.The "Socially abberant behavior" comment was Demo's (he's not too bright). I'm assuming you read my comment and reacted without reading the comments before it that I was responding to.

  28. >Okay so I didn't really engage Serr8d in a diplomatic dialogue. But I got to hand it to him. (With apologies to the Mac users.) Has anyone ever scrolled through Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and seen every little web icon, avatar and cookie? I do it from time to time. It usually blows my mind. So there it was, as big as life, an old publicity photo from Hee Haw with a big red arrow pointing at Junior Samples. ??? How the hell did he do that?

  29. >mikey:"Do you own a camera and a computer MikeB? If so then shouldn't you accept partial responsibility for the proliferation of child porn?"is a lovely strawman argument. See, the thing is if a camera or a computer is accidentally triggered in a coffee shop, bar, city plaza or whatever, chances are very, very good that no one will be injured or killed by the act. You might want to use the cars comparison, again, but make sure you show the math–the math, btw, is not your friend in that situation.You accused me of being a racist, several comments back. So, do you have some proof of that or were you lying, again, just like you were lying when you said you support gay rights as much as gun rights?

  30. >You accused me of being a racist, several comments back. I did no such thing. But hey, keep on lying, it makes you the perfect spokesman for gun control.

  31. >mikey;Aside from being a liar you just ain't too bright.I said:"The nicest thing about Siridiot's comments is his wonderfully colorful use of the mother tongue.A racist, a bigot, a man who is so frightened of the "other" that he derives justifcation and solace from the rantings of his drug addled and delusional mentors Limbaugh and Beck–cursing and foul language are certainly the least of his problems."To which comment your reply was:"Heh, Democommies characterization of "Serr8d" sounds exactly like Democommie himself.Projection? You bet!"Like I said, you're a liar–but we both knew that already.

  32. >So you deny that the characterization doesn't fit your behavior quite well?