Thursday, January 13, 2011

MEGHAN McCAIN ON ARIZONA: "I KNOW ANGRY RHETORIC WASN'T THE REASON, BUT ISN'T IT GREAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONING IT DOWN NOW?"

The following is my reaction to Meghan "The Brain" McCain's latest missive on The Daily Beast titled "What We Need to Learn From Arizona."  Except that apparently what we "need to learn" are lessons that have nothing to do with what actually occurred in Tucson. 

Here's a link to the original piece.  Please come back here for my comment -- I can't be sure that the Beasties will approve it.  I've had several remarks there spiked going back to 2008.




Quoth the Meghan:

"What is particularly sad and telling about the climate of today’s media cycle is that it seems to have taken the media this kind of moment to start analyzing their own rhetoric—even if that rhetoric wasn’t the reason for the tragedy."

Congratulations, Meghan, you have just joined the millions and millions of sheep who have swallowed the MSM narrative and regurgitated it to the rest of us for our consumption.  Fortunately for me, I long ago lost a taste for semi-digested propaganda.

In case you live in such an impenetrable bubble that you haven't yet heard or [had] someone tell you, allow me: You're being manipulated.  Scratch that -- you're being duped.  And, funny thing is, you seem to enjoy it. 

How dare I write such a thing, you may ask?  Simple: you just admitted it yourself.  Here's more you:

"Although I do not believe this shooter's motives had anything to do with the current political climate, it’s good that the media is questioning the dangerous levels that the rhetoric has reached nonetheless."


You see? You know good and well "rhetoric wasn’t the reason for the tragedy", but instead of upbraiding the media for pretending that it WAS about the rhetoric (for obvious partisan purposes), you boldly continue with their big lie by furthering a national discussion on an unrelated "conversation" -- which was started in the spirit of partisanship by the left, and promoted through the means of libel and slander of the right. 

Meanwhile, the reasons why Ms. Giffords got shot and six people were killed -- y'know, the REAL reasons -- go underexplored by the media and most self-described center-left folk.  They're kinda occupied, despite the fact that the similarities between Loughner and the Virginia Tech shooter are eerie; isolated, severely creepy marginal college students with paranoid theories and violent fantasies that frightened teachers and students alike, enough to get them barred them from their campuses.  Somehow, they each got ahold of a firearm, and -- in the words of Drowning Pool -- "Let the bodies hit the floor." Teachers, counselors, parents, and surviving "friends" say "I KNEW he was nuts, but I didn't know he was THAT nuts."  The only significant difference is that Loughner was stopped before he offed himself.

But, apparently, y'all think it is more important to seize this moment to focus attention on YOUR  pet peeve: That goldarn angry rhetoric. And it was really important to take advantage of the situation as the story unfolded, because if it turned out the gunman was yet another Arab dude who turned out to be a Muslim extremist, we wouldn't have had squawking heads, bilious bloggers, and a media whore county sheriff blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck for murders they didn't commit.  Such blood libel (yeah, I said it, and I meant it) was needed to get the ball rolling.

Getting to the bottom of the real reasons why six people are dead and making necessary changes to prevent something like this from happening again can wait until next time the culprit is not a Islamist.  First things first, right, Meggie?

1 comment:

Yogchick said...

There's nothing wrong with "angry rhetoric." Nothing at all. If anything, it's a sign we live in a healthy, open democracy where people are passionate and outspoken. Nobody ever said democracies are supposed to be modeled after Victorian tea parties. Democracies by their very nature are confrontational, passionate, and even divisive.

Having said that, inciting people to violence is inexcusable. So is reckless language that could be interpreted as a incitement to violence. I'm talking to you Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle, et al. Sure, Jared Loughner's actions had nothing to do with you (it's already become clear he's schizophrenic and didn't even watch the news) ... but subtle and not-so-subtle encouragement of violence in the political arena should be viewed with alarm regardless. Putting up a cross-hairs map on a website with the message to "Reload" (then specifically listing Democrats who won in red states) is not responsible. Threatening to "resort to Second Amendment measures" is not responsible.

Imagine if a Muslim had put up a cross-hairs map on a website and listed specific Congressmen. Or if a Muslim made a public speech threatening to resort to Second Amendment Measures. Of if a Muslim told his flock, "I want you armed and dangerous" a la Michelle Bachman.

Anyhow, it's been an interesting week. Sarah Palin rightly claims she is being scapegoated for the actions of an extremist. In which case, maybe she should ask moderate Muslims for advice on how to deal with that. They should be able to relate to her predicament just fine.