Now it turns out the thing was probably a suicide. The whole thing is a symptom of just how poisonous our politics have become. Virtually no one gives their opponents the benefit of the doubt. No matter how absolutely sure you are that there is only one possible explanation, you can be wrong, and it would be nice if we all remembered that before we launched into the accusations of bad faith.
Update: Jesse Walker on the paranoid center
I'll just add that the paranoid center thesis didn't rest on whether or not this was a murder. There's a certain number of politically motivated crimes each year, and my position isn't affected by whether one single death is or isn't one of them.
What's important was the leap to judgment. A large number of commentators assumed, apparently inaccurately, that the death was a murder, that the murder was political, and that the motive was linked to one congresswoman's crusade. They made those assumptions because it fit a narrative to which they were committed.
When people on the far left or the far right do that, they're accused of paranoia -- of being so eager to connect the dots that they run ahead of what the evidence actually says. Let this sad story from Kentucky be a reminder that the establishment is just as capable of making this mistake as the fringe.
So we can wait for apologies from -
Jasper:
"What we know is that A) a federal worker -- most likely on the job -- was murdered in B) a part of the country that is deeply culturally conservative"
ethan salto:
"How many people have to die before you acknowledge that gun-toting lunatics contribute to a atmosphere that is permissive of political violence? Five? Fifty?"
Nick:
"It's clear that Republicans have been talking about the census, and it's fairly clear that this guy was murdered, in part, because he was a federal employee."
I'm not sure that Jasper there owes an apology, but ethan salto certainly owes Megan an apology for his consistsent badgering of her "support" of so-called "gun-toting lunatics". He was very willing to blame her specifically for supporting an ideology that was responsible for murder and asked her repeatedly to disavow them. It was well out of order even if it was a murder. He should be ashamed of himself.
And there are probably others who need to look into themselves and realize that those that they disagree with are not co-conspirators of murderous acts.
If he said he was likely murdered, or we thought he was murdered, I'd be more forgiving of Jasper. But he claims we knew he was murdered, then proceeded to blame conservatives for what he knew was a murder.
So we can wait for apologies from -Jasper:
Why would I apologize for believing what turned out to be the wrong explanation? The suicide victim, after all, apparently staged it to look like he was murdered to collect on insurance. I was merely guilty of being duped by a fraudster. All you righties were screaming about meth labs. You're guilty of spinning fantasies. Where are your apologies for getting it wrong?
No one is being asked to apologize for being wrong. They're being asked to apologize for suggesting right-wingers were to blame for the murder.
Since Glenn Beck isn't responsible for this man's death, should we ship the body to Andrew Sullivan instead?
Although the right-wing nutjobs didn't actually hold the noose ... the George W. Bush years leading up to Sarah Palin surely led him to commit suicide. I mean, who after all could want to live in the world where Bush and Palin exist?
So, in this way, the teabaggers are responsible for this man's death.
Sincerely,
Andrew Sullivan
I'm amused that when your co-blogger Sullivan was called on this one, he fell back to the Glenn Beck defense--"I was just asking questions!"
As though anyone could've reasonably presumed this to be a suicidal hoax?
The larger point - lost somewhere amidst the gloating here - is that the notion of an anti-government lynching was even a *plausible* scenario.
Well, whether it was plausible depended on your underlying assumptions. Possible, certainly, but I never thought it was terribly plausible.
I'm sure the apology will come right after the apology for rushing to judgment on the Duke rape case.
Good points. And true.
Even the FBI is not sure that cave men did it, so they have an open mind which means an open file in a continuing investigation.
Don't have a closed mind or justice can suffer.
"Virtually no one gives their opponents the benefit of the doubt." It turns out that the climate sceptics were right not to.
Megan,
Why don't you call out your colleague, BY NAME, rather than continue to insinuate/ avoid confrontation. Andrew Sullivan, TrigTruther, paranoid conspiracy peddler, was at the forefront of the "Sparkman was killed by Bachmann and Beck" accusations.
This is becoming a pattern here at the Atlantic:
Sullivan continues to take positions that few reasonable pundits would take: TrigTruthism, Sparkman was killed by wingnut conservatives, etc...
And yet none of his colleagues are willing to call him out. Jeffrey Goldberg calls out Sullivan when the topic is Israel, but nobody else has the balls to say what everyone else knows: Sullivan is getting nuttier by the minute, and it is an embarrassment to work with him.
Cowards.
Sorry GovITguy ... she can't do that.
Homosexuals are a protected class. If she calls him out by name ... she can be legally accused of creating a hostile work environment and sued by Andrew Sullivan for harassment.
Everyone knows who Michelle is talking about ... but let's leave her the last bit of plausible deniability that prevents Andrew from getting her fired (which is what they're after).
They're trying to provoke her.
Or her employer would have her head on a platter for attacking a fellow employee on their own web site. Give The Atlantic credit, they aren't trying to censor the comments about him, but expecting Megan to go after him is a bit unfair.
She can too call him out. Goldberg calls out Sullivan all the time, and rightfully so. Megan (and Douthat before he left for the NYT gig) seem unwilling to publicly say what everyone believes: Sullivan is a nut and he demeans a great publication.
Sullivan is a nut and his continued employment reveals The Atlantic to be a sleazy publication.
"Sullivan is a nut and his continued employment reveals The Atlantic to be a sleazy publication."
Ditto Megan's.
"Remember... [h]ow Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck were muderers [sic], and anyone who said that we should wait to see what the investigation revealed was a lunatic apologist for reactionary terror?"
Yeah. Remember all that stuff that never happened? Unless of course you never leave the hermetic sphere of Fox, MSNBC, and the Atlantic blogs? No actual human beings were walking around saying stuff like this. Chill out. Chill the hell out, dudes.
"Yeah. Remember all that stuff that never happened? Unless of course you never leave the hermetic sphere of Fox ..."
Andrew Sulllivan was saying this stuff. Here, let me prove it to you by linking you directly to his post since you seem so intent on memory-holing this and think nobody will fact-check you.
In this post, he claims the Sparkman death was not a suicide, but that it was a "lynching."
"That's one thing we know for certain now ... " wrote Sullivan. "... the most worrying possibility - that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts - remains real.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/no-suicide.html
Not only does this not prove your original statement, but it quotes Sullivan as claiming a possibility is real. Meaning, basically, that it's not impossible. Do you deny that statement to be true?
Beyond that, why is the notion of right wing domestic terrorism so impossible for you to comprehend? This isn't just opinion. There are dozens of high profile documented incidents just in the past few years alone.
I never said that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. In fact, I'm guessing that it's not true that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and I wish people would stop spreading the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Shameful gossip, people.
And this is a good reminder of how liberals operate, and why we need to remove them from power in 2010.
The comment above is a Google bombs so that whenever anyone searches Google for Glenn Beck casual observers might think he raped and murdered someone.
Liberals are not honest brokers. They can't be reasoned with. They have no intention of playing fair and so they paint large targets on themselves.
Don't be surprised at the result.
Maybe Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Maybe Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. Is it irresponsible to speculate whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? It would be irresponsible not to speculate whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990!
Bill wins a point.
Uh, please something more original than hi-jacking Gilbert Godfrey at the Bob Sagat Comedy Central Roast
Idiot.
And smilly124 does not. Thank you for playing!
Megan,
Thank you for this, for putting up a big, screaming headline about it.
Propaganda needs to be fought back against at every turn, to help the truth win out. Don't let the Big Lie get set in.
Speaking of propaganda, is there anyone here who denies that if a Republican were in the White House, "10.2% Unemployment" would be worked into every single story?
"Republican President X visited Japan Prime Minister today. This coms at a time when a 10.2% Unemployment Rate has tempers flaring at home..."
"There is a 40% chance of rain tonight, or approximately 4x the unemployment rate!"
etc...
No,
The MSM would be trumpeting the real unemployment rate (u6) of 17.5% and calling this a replay of the great depression, if any republican was president.
But it's much more fun to push uninformed opinions and speculation as fact to demonize others! Leave people their entertainment please. Otherwise, they might have to do the boring wait for the facts routine before assigning blame. And we all know someone else is always to blame since nobody has free will anymore.
"Remember the wave of right wing violence, like the murder of the census worker? How Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck were muderers, and anyone who said that we should wait to see what the investigation revealed was a lunatic apologist for reactionary terror?"
http://constanttrek.typepad.com/photos/picardie/strawman.JPG
No, no -- they were posting quite vocally on every website that mentioned the story. A couple of them were quoted above by another commenter for posterity. Although I will grant that "ethan salto", whomever s/he might be, was behaving as more of an all-purpose loon than a loon specifically committed to this story.
If that's a strawman, why does it have boobs?
Hey, hold on. How do we know the census worker was not himself a right-wing nut? Then he could, indeed, have been killed by a right-wing nut.
Come on people, let's not just give up on this! Be creative!
Also, there was a shooting at Fort Hood by a guy who was clearly very religious and conservative, except for spouting left-wing talking points about the war which we can all agree is irrelevant.
As I've said before, it is exceedingly hard to find posts on this subject where people actually did rush to judgment. As a matter of fact, it's difficult to find any posts that didn't contain a huge amount of caveats, provisos and questions.
But hey, if you've got a lefty-bashing narrative, you've just got to flaunt it, true or not.
Oh, it's not that hard.
It really isn't.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/tragedy_in_kentucky.php
Meth specialist TallDave
Heh.
I'm sure you had a point beyond calling me a meth specialist, but unless it was that I unfairly impugned the meth-using community I'm not sure what it was.
Sad, really.
STD didn't get the point. Well, he's not Stupid TallDave for anything.
Clue - it has something to do with criticizing others for jumping to conclusions while doing exactly the same.
I'd call it hypocrisy, except that I'm pretty sure it isn't the case with STD. It's just his natural tendency towards selective memory and stupidity. Heck, even now he doesn't understand it...
Of course, most hilarious is the reasoning itself.
EXHIBIT B: He was naked! Isn't that meth-y? Esteemed members of the jury, what else could the victim possibly be besides a meth-head?
Affixing Stupid to peoples' names is not acceptable comment behavior here. Thanks.
Dully noted. Calling somebody "stupid" is a very serious insult. From now on, I'll stick to nice acceptable metaphors regarding members of the press fellating Obama.
Right, because insulting references to the MSM are exactly the same as personal attacks on other commenters.
Clue - it has something to do with criticizing others for jumping to conclusions while doing exactly the same.
Here's a clue back to you: the difference is my conclusion didn't unfairly slander people of a political persuasion. That was sort of the whole point of the issue.
Also, if you're going call me "stupid," it's a bit less ironic when you don't make obvious mistakes like this:
what else could the victim possibly be besides a meth-head?
/facepalm. No one suggested the victim was using meth. It was the hypothetical assailants who were suspected to have been meth-users.
The problem with the personal attacks argument being, of course, that you also do plenty of those.
It's kind of pointless to discuss this, but you would think that, between calling a commenter stupid and invoking the image of a journalist sucking Obama's dick, the second would be considered slightly more transgressive in a comment's section. But maybe it's just me.
LOL. Slandering people of a political persuasion constitutes more than half of your comments in this blog. That's fine by me, libs can defend themselves. But seriously, how hypocrite can you get? In the same thread of the idiotic meth theories, you brought up the murder of James Pouillon, whose murderer was never linked to the pro-life movement (he was not even a leftist).
You're right - I made the mistake of giving you too much credit. Your story was even more bizarre. The putative meth heads undressed him. I mean, that's the standard meth head's modus operandi - they undress other people before killing them.
The problem with the personal attacks argument being, of course, that you also do plenty of those.
Sometimes I've responded to personal attacks with personal attacks. I usually make an effort to be civil, which is more than you or Nimed can claim.
LOL. Slandering people of a political persuasion constitutes more than half of your comments in this blog. M
Yes, but generally I haven't falsely implicated them in a murder, which is the topic here.
The putative meth heads undressed him. I mean, that's the standard meth head's modus operandi - they undress other people before killing them.
Apparently lots of people thought that was what right-wing extremists do.
I only said it was bizarre, and people on meth exhibit bizarre behavior sometimes.
Freddie,
Andrew Sullivan wrote the following on 9/26:
"No Suicide:
That's the one thing we know for certain now..."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/no-suicide.html
Exceeding hard to find posts on this subject where people actually did rush to judgment? Uh no, it took me 15 seconds to find that post.
Read the rest of the post, it's filled with conspiracy nuttery. But yeah, you're right, it had a "huge amount of caveats" like:
"It's possible, I suppose, that anger at the feds in general could make a drug dealer murder a census worker."
Wow, what a caveat! I suppose...
Do your homework.
If the local cops and coroner say it was an elaborately staged suicide to collect insurance money that didn't pay off for a suicide we certainly shouldn't question them. Cops never lie.
Apparently, it isn't only the cops telling the lie. A friend of Sparkman is apparently in on the coverup. I wonder what they have on him that would make him betray his friend.
I was really hoping blighter took a go at this one. Sigh....
The suicide conclusion was signed off on by the Kentucky State Police, the FBI, and the Forest Service. Not exactly corrupt locals in cahoots with the insurance company as many commentators seem to believe.
Somewhat off topic, but am I the only one that thinks that Southern Populist Terrorist would be an awesome name for a band? Sort of a Drive By Truckers sound....
McArdle fails to mention (surprise) that the initial police reports indicated that suicide was unlikely. So assuming it was a murder was not a big leap.
Wrong. Initial LEAKS indicated that suicide was unlikely. I do not recall any "police reports" that indicated suicide was unlikely. I do remember "sources who could not be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case" reported that it was not likely suicide.
Assuming it was murder actually was a big leap. It's fairly simple to quantify: How many people hang to death each year? How many of them are suicides? I'm guessing the OVERWHELMING majority of hanging deaths are suicides, including plenty that are staged to look otherwise, so it was a leap to assume it was murder.
Seriously, why are people so incapable of simply saying "I was wrong, I apologize" then STFU.
Contra you and Freddie, a bunch of people leaped to the conclusion that he had almost certainly been murdered, and then marched onward to say that it was probably the fault of [tea partiers/Glenn Beck/Michelle Bachmann/insert hated conservative here]. These accusations had minimal caveats, and they were uncharitable in the extreme. People who thought maybe we should wait for the investigation to finish were told we were just covering for the right wing terrorists--you can go back and look at the comment thread on the WTF? post I did.
The thing was weird, and leaping to the conclusion that it was 95% likely to be the fault of Glenn Beck was not reasonable. The apologies have mostly been grudging and resentful, as if it was Michelle Bachmann's fault that people had declared her a probable accessory to murder.
Megan,
I agree that "a bunch of people leaped to the conclusion that he had almost certainly been murdered..."
I just wish you would come out and say WHO these people are. We all know you mean Sullivan, so just come out and say it. The guy is a nut, he tarnishes your reputation and the reputation of your employer, The Atlantic Monthly. Grow some balls and write what plenty of people think you believe:
"Andrew Sullivan was once a terrific writer but now wades in waters that are uncomfortably close to that of a Kos Diarist. However brilliant he may be, his continued employment at The Atlantic Monthly is an embarrassment and I'm embarrassed to call him a colleague."
C'mon Megan, you know you want to write that. Just do it already.
It really isn't.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/tragedy_in_kentucky.php
Meth specialist TallDave
Heh.
I'm sure you had a point beyond calling me a meth specialist, but unless it was that I unfairly impugned the meth-using community I'm not sure what it was.
STD didn't get the point. Well, he's not Stupid TallDave for anything.
Clue - it has something to do with criticizing others for jumping to conclusions while doing exactly the same.
I'd call it hypocrisy, except that I'm pretty sure it isn't the case with STD. It's just his natural tendency towards selective memory and stupidity. Heck, even now he doesn't understand it...
Of course, most hilarious is the reasoning itself.
EXHIBIT B: He was naked! Isn't that meth-y? Esteemed members of the jury, what else could the victim possibly be besides a meth-head?
(whats' up with the double posting?)
Same thread, movertyperguy:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/tragedy_in_kentucky.php
Here's a sampling of Nimed comments:
----------------
It tells you TallDave is a douche. But you probably knew that already.
Thanks for that. Common sense is pretty scarce in this thread.
Bad faith or just an extremely poor working memory? Well, in this case you don't really have to choose (although it's possible that Alsadius had elected officials in mind).
I love how people who are not very smart in the first place pretend to be even dumber just to avoid dealing with a commonsense, basic point.
Still, Bachmann is being incredibly irresponsible here. She is deliberately insinuating that the Census might be a tool to put people in internment camps. And this, coming out of the mouth of an U.S. Representative, will obviously scare the living crap out of whoever happens to believe her.
----------------------
What a sad, nasty little person.
As always, context is an enemy of STD (Stupid TallDave)
commenter vinc:
How do those facts [not being hanged and being naked] scream meth-heads? They don't really tell me anything.
me:
It tells you TallDave is a douche. But you probably knew that already.
commenter Bayouradio:
...it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions about this case. Though it's equally ridiculous to be surprised that it's possible that the kind of things that have been said specifically about the census- which is mandated in the Constitution- might possibly lead to someone getting hurt or killed. The census wasn't the kind of bugbear that drove people over the bend until recently.
me:
Thanks for that. Common sense is pretty scarce in this thread.
These comments turned out to be right on target, as were the other ones insulting STD. Being a blowhard concocting wild theories on the spot has consequences.
Megan's post is a trip down memory lane. So we might as well not be selective about it. Plenty of people had no idea what they were talking about, not just the ones accusing Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann. STD and movertyperguy are quite good examples of this.
The context is that you're a nasty, sad little person who thinks personal attacks are some sort of debate form.
Grow up.
No. The point is that Megan has the moral authority to rub it in the faces of people who were freaking out, insulting her, and inventing all sorts of theories at the time without the facts to support them. You (and movertyperguy) don't, because you two reacted exactly like them with the meth, the Pouillon story and the "it's all a diversion" bullshit.
So, when you were happily jumping into the particular "told you so" bandwagon in this thread, I thought I'd remember people what you wrote at the time.
As an aside, I'll just point out that it's quite amusing that the same person who still thinks calling other people "girl" is an insult is giving advice on growing up.
No, the point is you and others advocated theories of the crime that conveniently smeared your political opponents. Now that's blowing up in your face, and you are lamely pointing to theories of the crime that were neutral to people's politics.
As for me, I only suggested meth appeared likely.
And as it turned out, all that stuff was a diversion. Stallman was trying to make his suicide look like something else.
The other point is your behavior in the thread is fairly despicable, and you should grow up and learn to have a rational, civil conversation where you don't call people names.
And of course I never said "girl" was an insult. If you're going to use a name that doesn't have a clear gender, you can't whine when someone misidentifies your gender, particularly after directing abuse at them.
*Sparkman, not Stallman.
Anyways, Megan has pretty clearly stated what is unacceptable behavior, and out of respect for her and the possibiilty of a rational, civil conversation we should all (me included) try to take a few deep breaths and avoid personal attacks.
Sully apologized, btw. Which means he's admitted being wrong at least one more time than Megan has.
Really? He apologized? No, he reluctantly acknowledged that it was not a murder, then proceeded to insist he never implied that Bachmann, Beck, et. al were responsible because he wrote the following line:
"It's possible, I suppose, that anger at the feds in general could make a drug dealer murder a census worker."
He quite clearly believed that Bachmann and Beck were the culprits here and he does not hold himself to the same standard he holds everyone else to (and not just in this case, google "andrew sullivan marijuana arrest"). He never would have let someone else he disagrees with off the hook for the "I suppose" caveat.
Yes, he later apologized for insisting it was murder, but on the insinuation it was Beck and Bachmann's fault, he continues to insist he made no such claims.
The man is detached from reality.
From Andrew's "apology" post:
For directly accusing far right extremists, as opposed to thinking it was a worrying possibility, I plead not guilty. Because I didn't.
Right, he was just asking questions! What's wrong with asking questions?
I used to read Andrew quite regularly when he was speaking against the Bush administration and I admired him greatly for it. Now he's just an Obama puppet. Seriously, just read his recent "Cool Potus" post...it's creepy. He loves the man after having promised to be "the harshest critic" of Obama. I can almost tell you what he will write about Obama on a day to day basis before even visiting his blog. He's unreadable.
"Right, he was just asking questions! What's wrong with asking questions?"
Considering the sheer number of you who think Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and believed the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape existed, that's a shade glib.
Considering the sheer number of you who think Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and believed the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape existed, that's a shade glib.
Excuse me, but I've never held either of those beliefs, nor any of the ridiculous beliefs, nor any other extreme left/right beliefs. I voted for Barack Obama. That you just attempted to paint me with such a brush deserves a retraction and an apology.
Maybe if some of you stopped trying to be such polarizing asses, our political discourse may be slightly more rational these days.
Bill Rutherford, Princeton Admissions:
I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and I do not believe such a tape existed. I also believe that Andrew Sullivan's paranoid delusions about Trig Palin's maternity and various other topics are seriously damaging The Atlantic Monthly's reputation. Whatever temporary boost in internet traffic and dead-tree sales are the result of Sullivan's popularity will fade, but the damage he has done is permanent.
You don't fight fire with fire. Sullivan doesn't get an excuse because some people on the other side are nuttier.
Megan McArdle should call his ass out for peddling in this nonsense.
> Princeton Admissions
Advertising are you?
Derek (just asking questions)
I think that people are being uncharitable toward Andrew Sullivan. He serves a valuable purpose: He reminds me that I can't even trust the Atlantic food blog to be truthful.
"No matter how absolutely sure you are that there is only one possible explanation, you can be wrong"
Precisely, Megan, which is why some of us want to go ahead and do things like give people access to doctors even if it might DESTROY ALL PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATION!!!! Cause, yeah, MAYBE it would. But in the meantime, there would be sick people who DEFINITELY go to see a doctor.
So, yes, as a liberal loon I was fooled into a thinking a man was murdered after he INTENTIONALLY MADE IT LOOK THAT WAY. You, on the other hand, are absolutely convinced that the sick and the poor will always be with us and no attempts should be made to alleviate their affliction.
The term you're looking for is "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
Nutella:
I'm sorry, but are you claiming that the sick and poor do not have access to doctors? I could be wrong, but I think there are laws that are quite clear: If you have an emergency medical situation, you cannot be denied treatment by an emergency room for lack of payment.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't reform healthcare in this country. And I don't think Megan has ever argued that we should maintain the status quo.
You're not arguing in good faith, how can you expect to be treated seriously?
Nutella, Megan is right. For merely being prudent, her motivations were attacked by many commenters, including you.
That said, Megan should have a look at the entire comment section of her post. Plenty of non-liberal loons on it. Lots of sensible liberals too.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/tragedy_in_kentucky.php
Durn. How are we every going to burn kids in a bus?
It's a custom of Democratic presidents to burn kids in a bus in the first year.
I'm sure conservatives respect the importance of custom?
Derek
Nice. Being freaked out by crazy things that Bachmann and Beck say is a sign of how "poisonous our politics has become". Pandering to these crazy people to hold onto power is... not poisonous at all?
Quite a few people were left twisting in the wind on this one...
Official Notice:
Pending a further investigation of the aforementioned commenters of the previous post, forthwith your "forensic investigator" credentials are immediately revoked, and you are required to turn in your Junior G-Man badge and laptop until further notice.
Reason has a nice round-up of the Emily Litella brigade.
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/24/send-the-body-to-glenn-beck
This one wins, I think:
Hehe. "Irresponsible voices" indeed.
What's really funniest in all this is that most of the people who should be apologizing are either pretending they never said anything objectionable or equating their statements with theories of the crime that didn't accuse the other side of the political spectrum of fomenting murder.
Naturally these are the same people who think 4th-grade-level insults are preferable to civil debate between adults.
By their fruits ye shall know them...
Not that I've been perfect, I will respond in kind now and then, but I do try to avoid throwing out juvenile personal attacks at other commenters if they aren't already doing the same to me.
Perhaps its better just to point out their behavior when it happens and leave it at that. No point in jumping into a cesspool just because others seem to enjoy swimming there.
Oh, please. Give it a rest, will you? The only person who is accusing you of that is Nimed. The thing is, he was cautious not to jump to conclusions at the time, unlike some.
And you know this, since you already scanned the other comment thread and all you could do was lamely post some of his quotes out of context.
So, if you're not owning up to your own past behavior, the least you could do is stop whining about it.
The thing is, he was cautious not to jump to conclusions at the time, unlike some.
Merely saying "let's not jump to conclusions" before suggesting Bachmann incited the murder doesn't actually absolve one.
And you know this, since you already scanned the other comment thread and all you could do was lamely post some of his quotes out of context
Right, because context makes invective better.
So, if you're not owning up to your own past behavior,
What past behavior? Where did I advocate a theory blaming lefties for the murder?
Megan - "Hanged Census worker not a victim of Right-Wing Terror After All"
Megan, PLEASE - I DO NOT want to ban you from my reading list - you provide intelligent insight to a younger (than me) generation.
I'm not going to try and offer a more appropriate headline, instead, I will respond to you as you did a while ago when one of your commenters wrote that someone should "take it up the A$$"
To which you most appropriately said - "HEY - CUT IT OUT!"
I know that this is your blog and I am only a visitor, but "HEY - CUT IT OUT!"
Maybe a more appropriate headline might read
"Progressive Slanders prove WRONG once again."
(and yes I am exaggerating, but you get the idea.)
Let's say for the sake of argument that the Census worker was murdered. And let’s say the killer wasn't a right-wing nut, but fan of the the film, "The Silence of Lambs" (1990), which won five Oscars. In the film, it's explained that Hannibal Lecter (everyone's favorite movie villain and well-mannered serial killer) previously murdered a Census-taker who tried to "test" him. "I ate his liver with some nice fava beans and a nice Chianti," Lecter explains in the film's best known line of dialogue.
Can anyone imagine Andrew Sullivan or other lefties trying to hold director Jonathan Demme, actor Anthony Hopkins, or even author Thomas Harris, who wrote the original book, responsible for the Census-taker's murder?
If we are going to assert a link between inflammatory speech and politically-motivated violence, then could there also be a link between inflammatory art/entertainment/video games and real-life violence?
Thank you Megan for noting the poor journalism, paranoia of those who rushed to blame right wing, conservative talk show hosts for inspiring a hate crime murder that never was.
My own political views are a mix - neighter Left nor Right. I have been strongly against all 20th and 21st century American wars, I am pro Union, pro worker, a (sane) environmentalist (I don't have a car), but I have noted with great disappointment that too many American "liberals", "Leftist" have embraced hate crime paranoia, supported speech restrictions against "hate speech" and intelligent political debate has been replace by vicious ad hominem attacks of "YOU'RE A
FASCIST,
RASCIST,
HATER,
RIGHT WINGER,
CONSERVATIVE etc".
I see the rush to judgement in the hanged census worker in Kentucky as part of the Hate Crimes hysteria that resulted in the passage of the Federal Hate Crimes Law. All murders are "hateful" - but the powers that be want to ignore or excuse the 99% of murders that don't fit the script of "hate crimes" committed by "evil, straight, White conservative males". I live in Chicago - where we led all American cities last year with over 650 murders, few if any qualified as "hate crimes" - (I guess these murders must be "love crimes"), so the national media prefers to ignore or make excuses for these murders (not enough social programs, root causes of poverty, inequality etc).
Thanks again to Megan for setting the record straight. Here's hoping there will be a new movement of fair, unbiased journalism in America and perhaps and end to political correctness.
Jack Ellis
bikers4freedom.com
By way of a belated comment here, the original news stories on this all pointed to murder. I believe I recall one even positing that suicide was "impossible" given the circumstances. So those wishing to refute claims of a right-wing hate crime suggested that the guy had stumbled on a meth lab or pot growing operation, or perhaps that the crime was wholly personal but dressed up to look like an anti-govermment killing. No one said "Maybe it was suicide," because the news stories discounted that possibility up front.