"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Friday, March 06, 2009

I hope Obama fails = treason?

According to at least one lefty Obama fan it is and should result in Rush Limbaugh being executed. The idea was expressed on Larry King's show and went by without comment. Is that the best way to react to such a provocative statement?

STEPHANIE MILLER, LIBERAL TALK RADIO HOST: I guess that is what Nancy and her friends want. As long as you have a place to listen Rush on the radio — if he fails we all fail.

KING: If his policies fail, he fails, right?

MILLER: Exactly. To me that seems treasonous


MILLER: … If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?

Video here at HotAir.

Rather than address the outrageous statement, I think there is more to criticize with the tactic. In my opinion Stephanie Miller was attempting to play a game wherein she would respond to criticism by saying she's just doing what the right did when Bush was criticized. Of course her claim as to what the right was doing is largely just in her imagination and it requires one to also very much distort what Rush Limbaugh actually said. The shocking statement was merely an attempt to provide a moment for once again demonizing and discrediting the right by way of claiming hypocrisy. It matters little what rhetoric is used, or how such words may inflame others to actually consider equating disagreement with a president as being treasonous.

...standing in the middle of a grassy square, the crowd alert around me, each of them connected to me by a taut invisible wire so that my will is their will, my mouth speaks their words, their hearts beat to my rhythm. I have never felt this before, this kind of life, to be part of a group like this, and not just part of it, but the mind of it, the center, so that my self includes them all, hundreds of them, my rage is their rage, their hands are my hands, their eyes only what I show them.

In fact, stirring up the mob may be quite useful for suppressing those who are less courageous. It can have other effects as well, let's not forget the talk of riots in the streets if Obama was not elected. No doubt quite a few who helped start the French revolution felt likewise about the usefulness of exciting group passions. One wonders if they later realized their error before the guillotine interrupted their thoughts.

A momentary silence. A lull. An opportunity. Think of the right words. Think of something to bring them back, they're slipping away. They were part of my self, but now they're sliding away out from under me, one spasm and I've lost control, if I ever had control; what can I say in this split second of silence to bring them back to their senses?

Some people who have a large audience say horrendous things merely to get attention and advance a less ridiculous plan of action. They don't intend to take things as far as their heated words can be used by others, however, that does not absolve them of all responsibility, despite their wish for that to be the case. It also offers little to no protection for themselves when the mob they've unleashed gets beyond their control.

They almost killed him in their rush to leave him, almost trampled him into the grass.

They were his, though, all the same. He had created them, made a single mob of them, and even though they had misunderstood what he created them for*, they were still acting according to the rage he had provoked in them, and with the plan he had put in their minds. Their aim was bad, that's all--otherwise they were doing exactly what he had wanted them to do. Valentine was right. It was his responsibility. What they did now, he had done as surely as if he were still in front of them leading the way. (Xenocide, Orson Scott Card)

No matter one's ideology, placing it's success above all personal responsibility, combined with the ends justify the means, creates a path that will nearly certainly lead to disaster. The foolishness of such short sightedness is clear in history. Must we repeat the past several times over with escalating terror and suffering at each pass before we learn the error of our ways?


Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: