When mainstream commentators treat a small group of unconnected crimes as a grand, malevolent movement, they unwittingly echo the very conspiracy theories they denounce. Both brands of connect-the-dots fantasy reflect the tellers’ anxieties much more than any order actually emerging in the world. When such a story is directed at those who oppose the politicians in power, it has an additional effect. The list of dangerous forces that need to be marginalized inevitably expands to include peaceful, legitimate critics.
[…]
The killers, they acknowledge, aren’t taking their marching orders directly from Fox News and AM radio. But by giving serious attention to theories associated with the fringe right—that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is preparing concentration camps, that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen—Glenn Beck and other broadcasters are validating the grievances of potential killers, giving them the impression that they aren’t alone.
[…]
The first is that it ignores the autonomy of people on the fringe. Not just the radicals who commit the crimes, but the radicals who don’t commit crimes. There’s a complex ecology at work here.. Words have influence, but they influence different people in different ways; you can’t reduce media effects to simple push-pull reactions. Accusing Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly of validating right-wing violence isn’t so different from accusing pornography of validating rape, Ozzy Osbourne of validating teen suicide, or Marilyn Manson of validating school massacres.
Think about that. Then go back and read Blue Oregon’s Carla Axtman’s comments on this blog attempting to link mainstream Republicans (and conservatives in general) with “wildly fringe conservative organizations” listening to “eliminationist rhetoric” “within [the] context of guns and stoked-up town halls.”
Axtman (among others) is engaging in the Team-Red vs. Team blue equivalent of blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine.
It seems our friends next door (literally) have been up to a few things lately, and I’m not just talking about painting their office blue.
I happened to peruse the University of Oregon College Democrats’ latest twitter posts, and wouldn’t you know it they posted 14 quotes from Obama’s speech to Congress from Sept. 9th.
If the College Democrats wished to assess the man’s speech, they have a tool–their very own blog. By re-posting Obama’s quotations on their twitter feed, the Dems have essentially endorsed anything that comes out of the man’s mouth. It’s the equivalent of editing your “favorite quotes” on Facebook.
I shouldn’t really be surprised though. I suppose the nature of the organization lends itself to participating in such acts. And, of course, its members will probably tell me that they only joined the College Democrats because it offered them the best overall utility for their political views–borrowing from what game theorists refer to as “sophisticated voting”.
Even so, one wonders what it’s like to be that kind of cog, spewing political policy without ever levying rationed, unbiased judgment before passing it along to the masses as acceptable.
In any case, if the College Democrats wished to truly voice their sincere, honest and complete opinions one would hope they would do more than just tweet recycled Obama quotes. From what I’ve been told, the members don’t always agree with everything the Democratic Party has to say. Let’s see it.
According to ESPN.com, Byron Hout, the player that taunted Oregon’s LaGarrett Blount following Boise St.’s 19-8 victory, will not be suspended by Boise St. or the Western Athletic Conference.
Coach Chris Petersen of Boise St. said that Hout’s actions didn’t warrant a suspension. Instead, Petersen has opted for “handling it internally”. Likewise, WAC commissioner Karl Benson said he could not verify what Hout had said to Blount, and therefore further disciplinary action by the WAC was not justified.
This may come as a shock to some college football fans, including those from Oregon. Regardless of what Hout said to Blount, the action of speaking and taunting Blount is absolutely unacceptable (and after a win, no less).
Blount had no justification for punching Hout, no matter what Hout’s actions were. Here’s what I have a problem with: I’ve seen Blount publicly apologize, call Chris Petersen to apologize and call Hout himself to apologize. Where is Hout’s public apology for inciting Blount? Although Hout’s responsibility for the incident is certainly less than Blount’s, I have yet to see him own up to it.
The University of Oregon and the Pac-10 acted quickly in doling out punishment for Blount (although admittedly, the decision to not revoke his scholarship doesn’t seem to match his full year suspension in athletics). In doing so, they’ve shown their no-tolerance policy for such actions on the field.
Since the public hasn’t been told what Hout’s punishment will be, it leaves fans wondering whether or not the discipline will be adequate. Only by taking public disciplinary action, like suspension, in regards to Hout’s actions will the WAC and Boise St. be able to save face.
For now, their “internal discipline” leaves something to be desired.
Well our first Saturday of college football is over, and it had some interesting storylines indeed. Besides Oregon’s own loss (and suspensions) some pretty surprising things happened this weekend.
I’ve recently been informed by a source that wished to remain anonymous that LaGarrett Blount’s interaction with fans at Boise St. was less than honorable–and not just on Blount’s side.
Apparently upon exiting the stadium, Blount was threatened to have objects thrown at him by several fans, including chairs. Blount was also called several racial slurs, including “Stupid N-gger” several times.
No word yet on what kind of action Boise St. plans to take for it’s fans in the sections involved with the altercation with Blount, but for the sake of their program’s respect I hope they at least bring some kind of justice to the situation. One would think that kind of action would not be tolerated in the conduct code of Bronco Stadium.
Alright, well the Ducks lost tonight. That’s not really a big deal, to be perfectly honest. We’ve all been ready for a letdown ever since Dennis’ knee went all kablooey on us.
Really the best part of the night was when LaGarrett Blount punched a Boise State player right in the jaw. It makes the guy look like a jackass (on national TV no less), but in Blount’s defense it was probably a Zinedine Zidane situation: the guy probably deserved to get one in the face.
LaGarrett, I’m sure your reasoning was perfectly sound. I’m glad to see you’re so fired up–that’s what we need. None of this “Nick Aliotti let-them-have-as-many-yards-as-they-want-bend-and-not-break” bullshit.
According to multiple sources, including the Oregon Daily Emerald and The Oregonian, LaGarrette Blount has been suspended for the remainder of the season, but will inexplicably be keeping his scholarship, allowing him to attend school and use the same resources as other athletes.
No word yet on why this decision was made, but it’s a head scratcher. Additionally, I’m personally looking forward to see just what was uttered to Blount by Boise St. player Byron Hout. In all likelyhood the University of Oregon, particularly the Athletic Department, will keep a muzzle on Blount, leaving interested fans and students alike out of the loop. Can we get a lip-reader on this, please?
In case some of you don’t remember, in March of 2006 the Student Insurgent put out cartoons of Jesus with an erection. The publication was a direct response to the Commentator‘s own publication earlier that month of the famous Danish Muhammad cartoons.
Through our vast array of connections, our very own Tyler Graf ended up on the “O’Reilly Factor” defending the Insurgent‘s decision to publish the cartoons.
Today marks the anniversary of the day that Germany invaded Poland in 1939, setting off the Second World War in Europe.
The leading light of the “paleo-conservative” movement, Pat Buchanan, evidently saw fit to commemorate this day by writing an article entitled “Did Hitler Want War?” [Updated link below]
The thing’s barely worth reading, and relies on a… novel understanding of history, to say the least, blaming the war on a “junta” of Polish generals and a Western plot to “punish” Hitler for Munich. Oh, and Hitler “let the British go” at Dunkirk, demonstrating his ultimately peaceful intentions. In short, this is the diary of an insane person.
Of course, jaw-dropping World War Two revisionism is nothingnew for Buchanan, who’s been pimping the “Hitler was misunderstood!” line for a few years now. Who knows? Maybe Pacifica Forum will invite him and David Irving to campus for a joint lecture about the Second World War one of these days. Hell, get the “Nakba = genocide” crowd out there for support and the UO can have itself a nice little orgy of Jew-hating historical revisionism.
[UPDATE] Realclearpolitics has evidently deleted Buchanan’s article from their site. If, for whatever bizarre reason, you wish to subject yourself to “Did Hitler Want War?”, you can now find it at Antiwar.com (along with, fittingly, Stormfront, etc. — which should tell you a lot about both Pat Buchanan and the people who run “Antiwar.com”).
