Jack Kelly: Ideological Contortionist (Warning: Strong Language)

In his column in this Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jack Kelly tries to argue that the real source of violent rhetoric in the United States today is the liberal movement. He tries to link just about every major shooting or terror incident of the past two years to liberal ideology.

My Gut Reaction: According to the website SourceWatch, Kelly makes much of the fact that he served in the Marines and the Special Forces in his official biography. Just goes to show why they're paid to fight, not to think.

Analysis: It's difficult to know where to begin mocking Kelly's article, as it is strewn with statements of varying levels of stupidity. Perhaps we should start with his comments about the program Democracy Now!, which he characterizes as an obscure radio show. As even a cursory look at Democracy Now's website will reveal, it is both a television show and a radio show that plays on 900 stations across the country, making it one of the largest independent media operations in the United States. Not bad for an "obscure left wing radio program."

Things start to get funny when Kelly paints Jared Lee Loughner as a leftist largely based on the fact that he smoked pot and owned a book by Karl Marx. He conveniently omits the fact that Loughner had at least tenuous connections to the group American Renaissance, a white supremacist organization whose founder at one point spoke at Loughner's college. This linkage has been documented by such radical sources as the Department of Homeland Security and the Christian Science Monitor. He also listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books, another sign of his liberal credentials.

Kelly descends even deeper into comic territory when he attempts to attribute just about every major act of political violence over the past two years to liberalism. The most laugh inducing paragraph in this section is when he depicts James von Brunn, the lunatic who attacked the National Holocaust Museum, as an enemy of conservatism. Never mind the fact that von Brunn was an avowed white supremacist who claimed that President Obama was not an American. Or the fact that he posted on the conservative website Free Republic, which quietly deleted his writings after the shooting. Very liberal guy, Mr. von Brunn.

Kelly then proceeds to shoot his argument in the foot. Having argued against the possibility that violent right wing rhetoric could produce killings, he then claims that criticism of Sarah Palin by figures such as Scott Simon of NPR has resulted in an increase of death threats against Sarah Palin. So violent right wing ranting, complete with gun imagery, is perfectly fine, but even moderate criticism of Republicans by left wingers is an incendiary act.

Just how fucking stupid do you think your readers are, Mr. Kelly?

What Mr. Kelly's argument represents is a thinly veiled concern among right wingers that their own violent calls to action could be turned against them. Even though it is highly unlikely that President Obama or any of the cowards who make up the Democratic leadership would be willing to take a truly hard line with the conservatives over this issue, there is nothing to stop the left wing netroots from adopting the right's rhetorical tactics. What's good for the goose may also be good for the gander.

Massacre in Tuscon (Warning: Strong Language)

This past Saturday's massacre in Arizona, which severely wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has sparked a great deal of debate over civil discourse in American politics. This evening's episode of Nightline, although posing as an objective newscast, argued that it was simply a matter of an insane person which had nothing to do with politics. Provocations such as Sarah Palin literally targeting Rep. Giffords in a gun sight in an e-mail and tea partiers holding an anti-Giffords rally in which guns were fired off had nothing to do with it.

My Gut Reaction: Who the fuck are they kidding?

Analysis: This is just another example of the mainstream media being too chicken to take a position on even the simplest of issues, consequently reducing itself to inanities. The conclusion of the 'experts' they had on was that mass murderers are crazed perverts.

Wow!Spree killers are mental cases. I would never of thought of that myself! The question isn't whether someone who engages in this type of activity is a mental case, but what triggers them to act out in a certain direction. And given the level of violent rhetoric that surrounds this Congresswoman, I find it very difficult to believe that there was no correlation.

For me, the solution is not any type of limit on free speech. Rather, liberals and progressives should start to play tit for tat with the Republicans and their pet fanatics in the Tea Party in terms of rhetoric. If the conservatives are going to use inflammatory images and words to rally support, so should we. No more Mr. Nice Guy...

Massacre in Great Britain

Yesterday, in the Cumbria secion of Great Britain, mass shooter Derrick Bird killed twelve people and injured twenty-five more. As the BBC reports,authorities have yet to be able to determine a motive, though reports indicate the shooter had been having familial problems.

My Gut Reaction: Am I the only one who's noticed that Great Britain experiences these events every five or ten years or so, while the United States seems to experience them every few months.

Analysis: It has pretty much been established to everyone who wants to think about it that the wide availability of guns in the United States contributes to the high number of mass shootings and gun violence in our country. The thing that strikes me most about what happened in Britain is how rare these events are over there, particularly as compared to here.

I am not arguing that we immediately implement British style laws banning hand guns. As desirable as ridding America of hand guns may be, that cat is already well out of the bag. It would require massive infringements on civil liberties to confiscate every hand gun in America, such that the cure would in many respects be worse than the disease. Nevertheless, the contrast of the two countries should be spur enough to lead us to consider far tighter regulation of fire arms and enforcement of fire arm laws in this country.