Why that survey seemed so bothersome
Mar. 12th, 2007 08:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI know it wasn't representative (it was a voluntary return survey of a non-random sample).
I also know that words have power, and the people who answered that survey were chosen because they are people who have audiences. I'm a small fish, in a very big pond (and the few hundreds of people who read me every day both shock, and please, me... you could find other ways to spend your time).
Those people, however, are bigger fish, some of them are probably huge fish, with audiences in the millions, and secondary effects, which multiply the message; move it into the mainstream.
Orcinus has a post up, detailing a few years worth of the bile the eliminationist brigades have been spreading. It's not just the random letters to the editor; which any idea might have someone espousing... though knowing a little bit about how such things are selected, I don't discount them out of hand... it's rare for a paper which doesn't print every letter to choose one which is unique, when it's so inflammatory as to be calling for people to be killed for what they think.
It's rather the big names, the one's who have books, and radio and television shows. The one's who engage in passive-aggressive abuse (Rush pioneered this, with his habit of letting on callers who disagree, cutting them off in mid-sentence, hanging up, and then going on to strawman the things they were trying to talk about).
Glenn Beck has a nationally aired television show, and he said this, to an elected representative,
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
He was lying. He did mean to accuse him of being an enemy. He just chose to do it in a cowardly way; burying the charge. You see, not only is this guy a Democrat, but he's a Muslim. Q.E.D. he must be interested in destroying the United States.
I don't buy the "well that's just a few people, it's not representative of the majority of Republicans."
Do I think most Republicans think that way? No, I don't, not yet. But they also refuse to repudiate them. They buy the books, they watch the shows, the listen to the radio.
Lots of them get upset when David Geffen says something, or when a Ward Churchill gets used to drum up a furor... but those same people turn around and say, "Well "x" is just being funny, no one agrees with them."
They don't get to have it both ways. Obscure professors, and movie producers who are only listened to a couple of times every few years can't be "the voice of the Left" while the people they pay six-figures a pop to hear speak at their policy meetings, year, after year, after year, are just "people engaging in satire."
It's that willingness to 1: Brush aside the content of hate-mongers, and 2: pay them large sums of money to engage in hate-mongering, which makes me believe that, a large, and; I fear, growning, portion of the Republican party no longer believe the social contract includes those who disagree with them.
I also know that words have power, and the people who answered that survey were chosen because they are people who have audiences. I'm a small fish, in a very big pond (and the few hundreds of people who read me every day both shock, and please, me... you could find other ways to spend your time).
Those people, however, are bigger fish, some of them are probably huge fish, with audiences in the millions, and secondary effects, which multiply the message; move it into the mainstream.
Orcinus has a post up, detailing a few years worth of the bile the eliminationist brigades have been spreading. It's not just the random letters to the editor; which any idea might have someone espousing... though knowing a little bit about how such things are selected, I don't discount them out of hand... it's rare for a paper which doesn't print every letter to choose one which is unique, when it's so inflammatory as to be calling for people to be killed for what they think.
It's rather the big names, the one's who have books, and radio and television shows. The one's who engage in passive-aggressive abuse (Rush pioneered this, with his habit of letting on callers who disagree, cutting them off in mid-sentence, hanging up, and then going on to strawman the things they were trying to talk about).
Glenn Beck has a nationally aired television show, and he said this, to an elected representative,
With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.
He was lying. He did mean to accuse him of being an enemy. He just chose to do it in a cowardly way; burying the charge. You see, not only is this guy a Democrat, but he's a Muslim. Q.E.D. he must be interested in destroying the United States.
I don't buy the "well that's just a few people, it's not representative of the majority of Republicans."
Do I think most Republicans think that way? No, I don't, not yet. But they also refuse to repudiate them. They buy the books, they watch the shows, the listen to the radio.
Lots of them get upset when David Geffen says something, or when a Ward Churchill gets used to drum up a furor... but those same people turn around and say, "Well "x" is just being funny, no one agrees with them."
They don't get to have it both ways. Obscure professors, and movie producers who are only listened to a couple of times every few years can't be "the voice of the Left" while the people they pay six-figures a pop to hear speak at their policy meetings, year, after year, after year, are just "people engaging in satire."
It's that willingness to 1: Brush aside the content of hate-mongers, and 2: pay them large sums of money to engage in hate-mongering, which makes me believe that, a large, and; I fear, growning, portion of the Republican party no longer believe the social contract includes those who disagree with them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 04:25 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 04:39 pm (UTC)S.J.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 09:18 pm (UTC)Glenn Beck also thinks it's acceptable to call a young woman who posed for suggestive pictures a whore. (Yes, the Idol contestant Antonella Barba)
We occasionally watch, generally just to see how much I can tolerate before I have to switch the channel. He has a serious Iran fixation, and a serious hate fixation.
But he's "funny".
I do worry that he makes it more acceptable to be insular and hateful.
DV
no subject
Date: 2007-03-12 11:20 pm (UTC)After all, Ann Coulter is the only person responsible for her remarks, no need for anyone on the Right Side of the aisle to condemn her.
Michelle Malkin: Ann Coulter was [at CPAC]yesterday. She gave a very, mostly funny, speech, and at the end of it, dropped a stinker where she used the term "faggot." And I'm glad, I have to honestly say, I'm glad I didn't bring my children here because that's not the kind of language I would use. What was your reaction to that? Because, predictably, the left is in high dudgeon about it. Howard Dean wants every presidential candidate in the Republican Party to renounce it. Do you think that was a really bad move on her part and should be condemned?
Sean Hannity: I didn't hear it. I'd rather see it before I comment on it and whatever. You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can't blame somebody else for what she said. So I didn't see it.
But when the shoe is on the other foot... it isn't just a comment he wants, but outright repudiation, and condemnation.
On Harry Belafonte:
Sean Hannity: But there's something wrong with an American citizen, on foreign soil, calling our president a terrorist, saying that he's the greatest terrorist and a tyrant. And you went with him on that trip. Why don't you say, "I don't want anything to do with that"?
Cornel West: Anything to do with what?
Sean Hannity: With what he said. He's your friend. Weren't you sitting on a plane with him? Wait, wait. You went on that plane with him.
Cornel West: I disagree with a lot of different people.
Sean Hannity: Do you condemn what he said?
When Dick Durbin said Gitmo was appalling, because it seems we jettisoned the Geneva Conventions:
Sean Hannity: Senator Durbin is refusing to apologize and instead says that the Bush administration should apologize for abandoning the Geneva Convention.
And joining us now with reaction is former presidential candidate, by the way, the newest member of the FOX family. Welcome aboard General Wesley Clark. How are you? We're glad to have you.
Sean Hannity: Obviously, he doesn't know what the Geneva conventions are. Obviously, he's never read them. Obviously, he doesn't know they don't apply to enemy combatants. But we'll put that aside for just a minute.
General Clark, these comments are insidious; they're repugnant. There's propaganda. This misinformation is outrageous. These comparisons are over the top, and they put our troops in harm's way. And we need prominent Democrats like yourselves to condemn it. Will you condemn him for saying this?
Yep, one set of rules for me, a different set of rules for thee.
TK