There’s blood on Beck’s hands

June 13, 2009

It has been amusing to watch the demagogues at Fox News brush off any responsibility for recent killings.  The latest technique involves arguing that the perpetrator wasn’t really right-wing in his beliefs, and therefore ‘he’s not in our team’, which is besides the point entirely:

Individuals with borderline-clinical cases of paranoia are always among us, under any administration, even in the most prosperous of economies. They are sick, just like a pedophile or a pyromaniac or a kleptomaniac.  Their paranoia can be focused on any number of peoples or theories, and they don’t necessarily fit a left-right classification.

Usually they keep their thoughts to themselves or within the small fringe of like-minded friends.  The difference now is that they are being encouraged day in and day out to come out and DO SOMETHING by the right-wing hate mongers.

In other words, the extreme right is using these poor sick people to fight their war, while pretending to wash their hands clean.

What is most sickening is that The News Corporation is allowed to profit off of this violence.  How does that make sense?

4 Responses to “There’s blood on Beck’s hands”

  1. still thinking of one Says:

    So those who criticize Obama are responsible for the museum shooting; opponents of illegal immigration are responsible for the four delinquents killing a mexican in Pennsylvania; and the next time someone punches a gay guy in a bar that’s the fault of all those who voted for Proposition 8. That’s quite a way to conduct a debate. FYI, in Russia hate speech laws are already being used full steam to jail anyone for accusing the government of corruption or other crimes for ‘inspiring hatred against social groups’ (government officials and law enforcement). Just so you would understand where your line of thinking is heading.

    • maristi Says:

      Nice strawman.

      First, I didn’t advocate any new laws. I seek public outrage and disgust towards these entertainers and businesses, and the advertisers that support them.

      Second, I have no problem with people being pissed off, or disagreeing, or even hating. Everyone is free to think what they want, and even hate who they want. As long as they do not act on that hate and harm another.

      When Beck calls facism! (on a president elected in a landslide) and talks about ‘the pot is boiling’, and cries into a closeup of his eyes like someone just killed his family, he is appealing to people’s hates and fears and inciting them to act on them.

      He is going as far as he can without being seditious, and way past what is responsible. He may not start a revolution, but he sure is getting people killed.

    • maristi Says:

      Actually, let me clarify: No laws restricting speech. No laws restricting formats (no fairness doctrine).

      But, I would definitely want to end the current corporate news model. I’ve said before this is the root of our problems. Some ideas:

      – Public supported, like CBC or BBC. Keep them independant using something like the Fed’s model.
      – Private, but only non-profits
      – Capture half of profits and give them to a ‘sister’ non-profit outlet. So the more income earned on one end from trivializing, fudging and entertaining, the more resources on the other end for advertising, production values and in-depth research.

      Of course, I have no illusions that any of this will ever happen. If anything I’ll be happy to see a more invigorated PBS.

  2. still thinking of one Says:

    Corporate ownership is not a problem. Number of corporations is. Clinton and Bush administrations have totally screwed the pooch on consolidation in key industries, creating virtual duopolies/triopolies in media, energy, and banking. Non-profits are not necessarily the answer. As soon as you transfer ratings to PBS it will become the center of corruption. They key is to have many, many distinct sources of information.
    Btw, you don’t need new laws to destroy freedom of speech in this country. It’s enough to impose harsh financial penalties by getting people fired from jobs for ‘insensitive’ remarks and jokes and suing them in civil courts. All under existing framework.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: