Who Is Promoting Violence?

It was interesting that in the same week that The New York Times announced it would begin publishing notices of gay unions on its wedding pages, the bestselling conservative shock-diva Ann Coulter was quoted saying this to The New York Observer: "My only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." In the same week, too, a Times editor tragically fell to his death from the 16th floor of the Times building in an apparent suicide. Soon enough, on the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, where Coulter’s minions congregate, the right-wing armies were cranking out all manner of bile about the editor’s death, stoking misogyny and homophobia, putting forth comments in line with Coulter’s terrorism-laden death wish.

One writer imagined the next day’s headlines: "NEW YORK TIMES SUICIDE; LONGTIME REPORTER/EDITOR JUMPS TO HIS DEATH FROM 43rd [sic] FLOOR. Women, Minorities and Gays Hardest Hit."

Another announced that "The only good liberal is a dead liberal!" while another let us know that he/she was "Weeping on floor with inappropriate laughter!!"

Still another opined that "joking about it isn’t appropriate. Especially since nobody here can recall reading anything he wrote. Now, had this been Paul Krugman…"(a reference of course to the Times’ razor-sharp op-ed columnist, a major George W. Bush critic). The ugly comments went on and on. The website eventually pulled the message thread.

Normally I’d pay no attention to (if not exactly dismiss) the crude banter of often anonymous people on websites–the kind of vile stuff present on political sites of all kinds (left, right and center) where people are pretty much allowed to post whatever they like. There are plenty of wackos on the Web, as we all know, and ignoring them is probably the best course in most cases. Ditto for Ann Coulter (also a wacko and someone I try to ignore).

But the comments are relevant in light of some recent blather from Slate pundit Mickey Kaus, who went on a tear last month about what he termed a "danger of political violence coming from the angry anti-Bush left." A onetime thoughtful essayist and editor for The New Republic, Kaus is now a "weblogger" who writes mostly nasty one-liners about people, as well as occasional longer screeds that are rarely of any particular merit these days, but are always full of exclamation points. And, as seems to be a prerequisite for anyone online who wants high traffic from loyal right-winger readers, Kaus engages in lots of New York Times-bashing, attacking the paper and its writers for all kinds of alleged misdeeds, major and minor, seemingly almost every day.

Now, honestly, some of my best friends are "bloggers," as they’re called, so this is not any sort of anti-blogger commentary; I’ll probably be blogging one day myself. (And in fact, before I go on I must thank
for their insights and observations the must-read webloggers Eschaton–www.atrios. blogspot.com–and Max Sawicky–www.
max speak.org–two among the many smart left-leaning bloggers now emerging and exposing Kaus’ and others’ shenanigans.)

Kaus’ downward progression, however, should be a lesson to all bloggers. He is an example of the lazy, self-indulgent and arrogant whirl that bloggers can spin themselves into over time, pressured to continually pump out quick, cuter-than-cute and/or inflammatory copy, in the hopes that something, anything will stick in a Web world in which what you wrote yesterday–or a few hours ago–is already at the bottom of the page or maybe even archived in the bowels of the site.

A case in point was his pathetic example of the supposed "danger of political
violence" from the left. Last month Kaus flew into a laughable tizzy about the liberal site Media Whores Online (www.mediawhoresonline.com). Now, if you’ve not been to Media Whores Online, you must go there to see how some on the left are finally matching the right in hitting the other side hard and where it hurts. Each day MWO, with a lot of wit and sarcasm, deliciously exposes the "whores" in the media and on the right. (Full disclosure: MWO often links to my columns, among those of many other liberal writers.) The site, whose operators remain anonymous, is clearly getting a lot of traffic–and both that traffic and the operators’ anonymity seems to threaten crypto-conservatives like Kaus. (Yes, Kaus has in the past been described as a liberal, but just read what he’s writing these days.)

As irreverent and provocative as MWO is, however, everything on the site is accurate, if coming from a clearly and admittedly liberal perspective. It doesn’t traffic in the broad distortions for which the vast right-wing conspiracy is famous. I suppose that might be considered a matter of opinion, one that should be taken with a grain of salt coming from someone left of center (so check it out and make up your own mind). But one thing that is absolutely true of MWO is that you won’t find anything even remotely close, in terms of an incitement to violence, to the rants of Ann Coulter and her legions.

Proof of this is in fact the length that Kaus had to go in order to try to connect MWO to violence in his hasty and embarrassing charge. He found some item written on another site, BartCop, in a message board, a crude and violent post about Bush that was similar to those above from FreeRepublic.com about the Times (the posting is gone now, so I can’t quote it precisely), and very similar to the nasty death wishes and calls to violence I’ve read about myself on other right-wing sites, including Lucianne.com. Kaus tells us that MWO is "associated" with BartCop–as MWO states on its website. So, because an anonymous poster on a message board posted a hateful comment on a site associated with MWO, that means, according to Kaus, that MWO is promoting violence.

If that kind of guilt by association is the standard we’re all to use, then what are we to say about Slate and Mickey Kaus himself? Kaus, you see, links to Coulter’s column from his weblog, promoting her as "Ann ‘Too Far’ Coulter–Sometimes it’s just far enough." I guess wishing for acts of right-wing terrorism against New York Times editors and reporters, people whom Kaus skewers almost daily, is "just far enough" to keep Coulter linked there. So let’s get straight just who is promoting violence. According to your own standards about "association," that would be you, Mr. Kaus.

I don't know about humor, but I've noticed that more and more left leaning writers are mining this website for "hateful right wing commentary." (Note the Alterman blog from yesterday) This place is now on their radar screen, that's for sure.

Perhaps we need some sensitivity training? Naw, they have earned our disgust by attempting to force their ideals on the innocence of our children. Using laws to hide behind the discord the liberals incite while imposing "lifestyle" and "diversity" on people will most certainly invoke negative emotions.

Since emotion is human nature, attempting to regulate predictable and perfectly natural responses of negativity toward unnatural acts and ideas will always occur and there is nothing short of brainwashing that will change that. Thats why the liberal agenda is trying to indoctrinate lifestyle into our children. That in itsself invokes malice and repudiation. Why? Because they are messing with our children. And if one of the proponents should succumb, then we should rejoice.

"the left are finally matching the right in hitting hard and where it hurts"

This undermines the author's previous comment that irrational and hateful blather emanates from "left, right, and center" on the Internet. Going back to my college days, where I mingled with the Left for several years, I have known that the Left's claim to be the voice of moderation and gentleness is absolute rubbish.

humor

If you want a clue as to the relative degree of humor on the political Right and Left, compare the National Review with The Nation. The National Review devotes two pages to cartoons every issue, with other cartoons and comical illustrations sprinkled throughout the magazine. Also, the cover charicatures are often hilarious. The Nation, however, is as grim as Moscow on a rainy day in February, with nary a cartoon to be found.

So let me get this straight: It takes brainwashing to show some class?

You can go on and on all day about how the Left is just as bad if not worse than FR, but that's just not how most people throughout the country are going to see it. If we keep giving our opponents enough rope to hang us with, it's just going to keep turning more and more people away. It may be plenty emotionally satisfying to act like a bunch of monkeys, but we're not going to be able to take this country back unless we start convincing people that the Left is foolish. And we're not going to be convincing anybody of anything if they're not going to have any desire whatsoever to listen.

Ann is bringing them to justice one lefty at a time.

Keep your powder dry Ann, there are plenty of loonies on the liberal pond.

"if we keep giving our opponents rope to hang us with"

That's my problem with Ann Coulter lately - she's gotten lazy and sloppy and as a result her opponents can get her painted into a corner on side issues. When she sticks to the facts, she can still be good, but she increasingly relies on zingers and broad generalizations that are easy to poke apart.

What is it with leftists...have they all lost their sense of humor?

There is noting humorous about loosing one's humanity, civility, and what is sacred. Conservatism does not mean to preserve only the Constitution but the "basic goodness of American people" as well.

For millennia people refrained from even speaking badly about the deceased. And now, someone is on the floor laughing?

The editor was our ideological opponent. To laugh at his death is a blasphemy. Shame on the person who posted that; shame on you for not knowing the difference between a joke and blasphemy; and shame on all of us for not upholding higher standards of civility and decorum on this board.

Perhaps we need some sensitivity training?

Of course not. But a great deal of good manners and the sence of sacred are much needed. But when the parents fail to do that, there is nothing much anyone can do, isn't it?

The liberals won't listen or debate even if you have proof on video, photo, audio so why worry? If it takes personal attacks to get them to listen and respond, so be it. They have used the same tactic effectively for years without shame. If conservatives fold up like wussies every time they are attacked, the liberals win. I have seen too much of this and it makes me sick that people are too weak to stand up and say what needs to be said in defense of our rights. I for one refuse to lay down.

The truth is all that matters, not sensitivity, not political correctness, not diversity training. This is a fight for the very foundation of our freedoms and there can not be any more delay. Either we are going to be pro-active for our rights and the rights of future generations, or we will be reactive when we discover the rights have been lost forever. And we succumb with our heads low in shame for not doing or saying everything we could while we had a chance.

"but I've noticed that more and more left leaning writers are mining this website for "hateful right wing commentary."

And what they are seeing is folks defending cop-killers, chicken-littles warning that the end of all freedom starts next week, and pro-druggies. Is it any wonder those like the junior Senator from New York and the author of this article have little problem painting all conservatives as fringe idiots?

Soon enough, on the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, where Coulter’s minions congregate

Dear Ann,

Can I be your minion.

Love, dinasour

You need to listen to yourself. How does cheering the death of a newspaper editor promote the defense of our rights? This has nothing to do with standing up for ourselves, nothing to do with being "pro-active" about anything, and sure as hell nothing to do with spreading the truth. It has everything to do with making total jackasses of ourselves to the general population.

You're right: The truth is all that matters - not boorishness, not scoring cheap shots, not seeing who has the better schoolyard taunt.

And what they are seeing is folks defending cop-killers, chicken-littles warning that the end of all freedom starts next week, and pro-druggies.

I think the problem posed by those people is over-exaggerated, since they end up getting flamed or at least disavowed by the majority almost every time they post. The tribal hooligans around here are a much bigger problem.

I was not cheering anyones death. I was responding to accusatory language from a published article which focuses the blame of his death on homophobia, primarily because the New York Times was taking announcements for same sex unions. There within is the outrage. I know nothing about the editor who died. If he so happened to be homo, I would have never known the difference unless someone made a point to announce it like it really mattered to anyone. Except to shove something down the throats of people who gag at the thought of being taunted in the name of rights, while being violated with the storefront agenda of gays.

I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from now. But if you're referring to the article of this thread, it didn't attempt to blame his death on homophobia or anything else. The only reference it made to homophobia had to do with the comments that Freepers allegedly made after his death.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.