Sunday, January 9, 2011

The message, not necessarily the messenger. A rhetoric laced with metaphors of violence can have consequences. Just don't feign innocence afterward.


TenMile said...

I can relate to your written word, the speaker however blames first and formost the "other" people and glosses over his.

Liberalism = do as you wish.

Conservatives = restraint.

The shooter was Liberal.

Action without principals, not necessarily rules, but moral principles, is almost always irrational.

If your speaker spread vitriol upon himself as great as he cast upon others he'd be a lot more believable.

Shooting in this case wasn't right - nor smart.

Anonymous said...

guns don't kill people bullets from guns kill people.

bastinptc said...

I do not want it to appear that I am coming to Olbermann's defense, thereby making it possible to disregard the overall thesis behind his "Special Comment," yet I believe within the body of his remarks he apologizes for statements he has made that had references to violence. I find myself often disagreeing with his approach to a story in order to bolster an agenda, and to say that he is doing so just to counter others using the same methods for an opposing agenda is not justifiable.

Likewise, I find definitions are often formulated to reinforce belief systems, and that words, labels, soundbites, etc, are always much more nuanced. The difficulty is seeing through the filter of one's belief system, which is why I tend to avoid the topics of religion and politics on this blog. They are topics for which certainty escapes me and my opinion means little.

Nevertheless, I do have opinions, and have (albeit qualified) a discerning ear, eye and mind that together are able to sift through the rhetoric to find grains of rationality and even common sense. Not an easy task, mind you, and to express those notions I formulate, are often somewhat awkward, not unlike the sheriff Olbermann quotes. I cannot abide hate mongering, which is what I see happening these days in the media and in politics, and therefore in the culture. It lessens all of us, and it is not only unproductive, but lazy as well.

Anonymous said...

The Fort Hood massacre, 2009, killed almost three times as many people. Do the same principles put forth here apply to that, too? Dare I mention the religion aspect? No, I don't. Fort Hood sure didn't seem to relate to media vitriol. Restraint in judgement was urged then, not so much now.
Please know that I am not a supporter of Palin, Limbaugh, or any far-left or far-right person or group. Somewhere near the center-of-the-road is the only way we will survive.
I, too, avoid religious or political blogging, but it seems to be an open subject right now.

Forrest Gump said...

My initial thoughts were that the shooter has serious mental issues, his political persuasion was irrelevant. I pretty much agree with everything this journalist covers:

Consider this guy for a moment.

To settle the masses and assure the public we're not going down the American path, the government proposed a plan to buy back guns from the public excluding farmers. You can imagine how successful that was.

Anonymous said...

The anti gun patriots want to ban guns because it would have stopped even the first victim of this shooting from being struck by a bullet. The pro-gun lobby wants guns freely available because that may have only stopped the fourth, third or even the second victim from getting struck by the assassin's bullets.

[pause for effect.]


Any country that criminalizes weed and hookers but legalizes guns might as well be a location in Gulliver's Travels.