Shots Across The Bow

Rich, I'll answer you here, now that I challenged you at Bubba's place, and you have directly responded to me.
First, yes, I am disappointed that this is the best you can do. I think you have recklessly (within the very "catastrophic atmosphere" you decry) hurled absurd and completely unwarranted 'responsibility' for the shooter's action in Kville. It's just disingenous, Rich.

Don't say you respect Bubba, while in the same series of posts you negatively opine about "the passion that is running through the left wing of the Democratic Party," and/or "the hyperemotionalism rampant in the left wing of the Democratic Party." Infantilize our strongly held belief that this administration has been a disaster if you must, but please don't pretend that people on both sides of the political dial are (thankfully) highly engaged in the outcome of this election.

Yes, I think you should have emailed Bubba. Your remarks were so very personal. And careless.

And please stop using the words "Democrat" and "liberal" so interchangeably. C'mon, Rich. Limbaugh has made a career out of that sort of finger-paint rhetoric.

Peggy, first let me thank you for coming here to discuss this. I won't post comments at Bubba's since I'm not welcome, and I'll honor that. This way, the discussion is much easier to follow.

Next, I'll address your last point first. I try to be very specific when I write about things like this. I avoid blanket terms, and usually stay away from "democrat" unless I modify it with something like "the left wing of the Democratic Party" or something like that, since I'm generally not talking about the mainstream of the party, but the more radical liberal both within and without the party. How would you like for me to designate these folks? Seriously, come up with a workable form of address and I'll be happy to use it. And I'm curious, do you believe you are a mainstream liberal, or are you more extreme in your views? How about Bubba? Is he mainstream, or is he more radical? I'm very interested in how you see yourself as a part of the spectrum.

Next, there was nothing "reckless" about the post. I considered it very carefully, including whether to name names, and for the reasons detailed above, decided to proceed. While the post certainly made Bubba angry, I hope it has the long term effect of toning down the rhetoric a notch, if only in this small corner of the blogosphere. I'll probably be disappointed, but I gave it a shot.

Continuing, once again, I never said Bubba or his commenters were responsible for the shooting; in fact, I said the exact opposite, clearly and specifically. That being said, let me ask you a question: Sexual harrassment legislation as well as hate speech legislation explicitly recognizes the link between speech and actions. A harrassing atmosphere can be created with nothing more than words; by the same token, an atmosphere where violence is seen as acceptible can also be created with words. Do you support hate speech legislation as well as sexual harrassment laws that make certain forms of speech criminal due to the atmosphere they create? If so, then my extension of this principle to political speech is not unwarranted.

Let's approach this another way. In the days after 9/11, there were a lot of voices that said that we bore, indirectly, some of the responsibility for the attacks due to our Middle Eastern policies. I don't know if you accept that view, and from what I remember, Bubba rejected it utterly, but many still consider it a valid point of contention. If it is valid, then certainly, it isn't unreasonable to suggest a similar indirect link between inflammatory rhetoric and an acceptance of political violence. As an example, one commentor on the post said that if it had been him, the headquarters would have been blown up. Now, obviously, this was a joke, but doesn't the fact that this "joke" was seen as acceptible indicate that an atmosphere where violence is tolerated is being encouraged? That would be the assessment if it were a racial joke or a sexual joke in the work place. Is there a difference here, and if so, what is it?

Remember what I said from the beginning. I don't believe that there is a direct link between Bubba and co. and the shooter. In one of my last comments over there, I called it an unintended consequence, and that's still my position. Bubba would no more condone or incite violence than I would.

Now then, about passion and politics. I expect you to be passionate about your beliefs; after all, so am I. But I also believe that that passion must be channeled in order to be effective. For example, leaving the shooting aside for the moment, consider Edward's comment before the debate, where he called roughly half of the citizens of the US "crazy" for voting for Bush. What does that say about the mindset of Edwards that he thought such a statement was actually helpful, much less acceptible?

I'm not infantilizing anything, but I am suggesting that this passion is leading some liberals into bad politics, similar to the congressional republicans during the Clinton Presidency.

Finally, I hope you can take the time to return and answer some of these questions, because there really are some very intriguing issues here, particularly in the comparisons between hate speech and sexual harrassment laws. I'd really like your input on these as you have a viewpoint denied to me by biology.

PS, let the guys know the name of the song they're talking about is "she's more to be pitied."

I've got the Ricky Skaggs version, but I don't know who did it first.

Rich,
It's all well & good to claim that you avoid "blanket terms," but the second sentence of your inflammatory post yesterday was, "Apparently other liberals take more direct action," (then citing a bit of the news article about the shooting, which in no way implicated anyone, much less their political affiliation). The first word of your post was "Bubba." So, having suggested that a 'liberal' was perhaps behind the shooting, you then go on to say that Bubba and his crowd will no doubt deplore it, (I don't speak for "his crowd" but I do indeed deplore it-whoever did it, no matter what political persuasion-if any), "but also because it makes them all look bad." Some unknown person(s) shot up an office and it makes "them," i.e. "liberals" look bad? May I please insist (again) that you did in fact forget to not use "blanket terms" on that one, Rich. That shooter didn't make anyone 'look bad.' That shooter was a violent vandal, period. Thank God no one was hurt. Don't ask me for a "workable form of address" for people with whom you disagree, (Bubba), and people who shoot at stuff for no reason, (the vandal). You apparently already have it: "liberals."

"...but to be perfectly honest, they and others like them contributed indirectly to the shooting." Oh really? "They"? "Them"? Me?

I don't know what a "mainstream liberal" is. I'm a Democrat. Frankly, I don't think John Kerry has all the answers, and he will inherit Bush's disastrous policies and their effects, but I believe he will forge sensible and honest new directions.

I'd rather not label Bubba. You already have to your own liking, it seems to me.

"...an atmosphere where violence is seen as acceptible..." Acceptable?! Harrassing words led to the death of Matthew Shepard, but I'm sure you didn't mean that. I support legislation that prohibits sexual harrassment of men and women, and I support hate crimes legislation. (Robert Byrd, rest in peace...)

If you still insist that the shooting in Kville was an 'unintended consequence' of 'liberals'(in general) and Bubba's (in particular) expressed disdain for the Bush administration, rather than a random act perpetrated by some unknown criminal, then we have little else to discuss, I guess.

Dissent, even at the fever pitch felt on both sides of this election, is part of the freedom we treasure here. Those bullets were fired by some dumb thug whose political affiliation is superfluous.

Rich, I'm trying here. But I suspect we need to respectfully disagree.

Make that James Byrd, of course. (eesh)

Peggy, I deeply appreciate the effort you're going to, and I do think we may be closer than you think on this issue.

Let me expand on the original post a bit and see if it makes a difference at all. It may not; I don't know.

When a political headquarters is attacked, particularly when other HQ's have been attacked by the opposition in the very recent past, and a hotly contested election is drawing near, it is a very reasonable supposition to draw that a member of the opposition, more than likely a fringe element, is involved. No disrespect to one of the commentors over at skb's, but all are not equally suspect in this shooting. The first step in an investigation is to look at possible motives to narrow down the list of suspects. This was the basis of my statement that "Apparently other liberals..." I included apparently because the possibility exists that this wasn't done by a liberal and I wanted to address that possibility.

However, I wouldn't bet the house on it.

As for my comment about the shooting making liberals look bad, I simply refer you to Bubba's post, where he says the exact same thing, possibly using the reasoning I followed above.

If you think about it, even the stupidest, most unhinged Democrat would have nothing to gain and a lot to loose by something this retarded.

And no, I don't believe the word "liberal" applies. As I've said repeatedly, I don't believe this action represents the typical democrat or liberal, instead being the work of somebody way out on the fringe. However, it is difficult to deny that the actions of this whacko, liberal or not, will reflect on liberals in general, particularly in light of other attacks on GOP headquarters that were carried out by "Violence Prone Sympathizers of the Liberal Agenda" (VPSLA). (As an acronym, it stinks, but I refuse to type out the whole thing every time. See, I told you I needed help coming up with an appropriate term.)

I'm not looking for a label or a pigeon hole, just a way to identify without insulting.

Now, if you accept that creating a climate of hate and intolerance, even if only through words, can lead to or trigger violence, which is the basis for hate speech laws, why do you reject the possibility that a similar level of abuse and hostility directed at a politician or a political ideology could lead to or trigger similar violence? The reason hate speech has been found to be criminal is it dehumanizes the victim in the eyes of the abuser, making it more likely that violence will seem acceptible. If you deny a person's essential humanity, it becomes easier to contemplate, or actually perform a violent act against them.

This to me is a key issue since to be perfectly honest, I'm not that comfortable with any law regulating thought or speech. The idea of a hate crime is at least as tenuous a concept as the "war on terror," since both deal with punishing a mindset rather than the accompanying actions. (Which would be another interesting topic for discussion.)

But, if it is reasonable to place limitations on speech that has been demonstrated to promote violence based on race, gender, or sexuality, isn't it reasonable that it should apply equally to other areas where passionate disagreements have led to violence in the past?

I don't know the answer to that question, but my concern over the growing level of hatred and anger that divides us is real, and it compels me to take a stand, even one as essentially meaningless as mentioning it on this blog.

Finally, your statement of my position is just a little bit off. Dissent is great. You and I disagree here, and will probably disagree about just about everything. I posted a while back that we need a robust liberal movement, one not contaminated by ideological hatred, to provide balance to unchecked conservatism, as I suspect that the optimum climate for America is somewhere in the middle. It isn't good for either side to hold too much sway. Of course, the question becomes where is that balance point, and where are we in relation to it?

Anyway, while we disagree, and probably very strongly on many issues, you and I, and I'm speaking personally now, are able to do so without rancor, without dehumanizing each other. You took a big chance, giving me the benefit of the doubt, when you could have assumed like most over there that I was an ideological asshole. Heck, you even paid me a mild compliment at bubba's, when you said I "wasn't too bad" I think it was. (I hope you believe you were right in doing so.)

That ability to disagree with dehumanizing is, to me, is the key difference between dissent and whatever it is you want to call what is going on in too many places on the left. Liberals are angry, and they have cause to be. The problem is that some of them are allowing that anger to take over, and instead of acting in dissent, they are acting like this is a blood feud. Take a stroll through the comments section at Atrios's, some of the threads of DU, and even skb. It can get pretty rank. Many of the comments are abusive, and collectively act to strip conservatives of their essential humanity.

And going back to my first point, they work to create the impression that VPSLAs are capable of performing such acts of violence.

This is not to say that some on the right are not doing the same thing. On the contrary, I'm sure you can find examples of right wing rhetoric every bit as repugnant as the places I pointed out. All I can say is that I don't do that here, and won't.

I believe we can voice our disagreement without denying each other's humanity, and that is what I believe dissent is all about.

OK. I hope this clears things up a little bit, paticularly since it's about an hour past my bedtime, and I've used all my writing time on these comments instead of my book. Again, I do appreciate the time you've taken, and I hope you feel it worthwhile to continue the discussion, since there are some very interesting areas to explore, and walking down Gay street mumbling to myself is sooo boring.

And it gets you talked about...

Rich,

I too think that you owe Bubba an apology. First off, if you wanted to give a liberal site as an example, the better option was to use Democratic Underground or the like. In truth, sites like DU, LGF, Free Republic, etc. display much more of the venom that you are talking about than Bubba ever has. He makes the occasional reference to the pResident, etc. but nothing close to the level that these sites do, nor anything close to something that would set someone off.

You are also trying to have it both ways. You state "Don't get me wrong; the idiot who took a couple of pot shots at the building is the one responsible for his actions" and also state "they and others like them contributed indirectly to the shooting." What you are in essense saying is that Bubba (and people like him) aren't completely responsible for the shooting, but are partially responsible and that is offensive to him and people like him. Particularly someone like Bubba who is definitely not LGF or DU.

Finally, as Peggy noted, we don't know who did it or why they did it. It could have been anyone doing it for any reason. Until we know who did it and why, its irresponsible to claim that "something set him off, and it was very likely something similar to the hateful tripe Bubba is pushing." since we don't know who did it and why.

Having said all that, I do agree with some of what you've written. When I moved down here, a friend of mine told me the difference between Canadians and Americans (well one of them anyway). He said in Canada, Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats..that's who you VOTE FOR. In America, Republicans; Democrats, that's who you ARE.

It's one thing to engage in spirited political debate (and I for one enjoy doing so). Its quite another when it goes to the level that it does here, where people like to attack the messenger. Its one thing to say I disagree with this persons point of view, its another to say that this person has a different point of view because he/she is evil. Bush is in Iraq to enrich his friends; Liberals hate America, etc.

Sorry, manish, but I disagree on a couple of grounds. The shooting took place here in Knoxville; that makes it local, and Bubba and I are both local. Second, just scroll through the comments section for the last week. You'll find every bit as much trash as you will at the sites you mention. One commentor said that he would have blown the place up. Another said it would have been better if Bush had gone to Viet Nam and been scragged by his troops. Joking or not, I don't know how you can get more venemous than that, which makes bubba's site an appropriate to use as an example.

Again, I'm not suggesting a definitive link between bubba and the shooter; I'm not saying that something on bubba's site caused this guy to flip his lid. What I'm suggesting is that something similar to the stuff found at bubba's likely contributed to the shooting.

On responsibility, let me ask you this. Is a guy who cracks racial jokes all day long at work responsible for creating an atmosphere where discrimination and racial violence are tolerated? The legal answer is yes, of course. Now take it a step further. If one of his co-workers goes out and murders a black man, is our first guy responsible for the murder? Nope, but there is an indirect link, isn't there? Now take it a step further. Is the employer of the first guy at fault for not cracking down on the racism in the first place? That's a gray area. Crimiinal law says no, but IMO civil law is tending towards saying yes.

So how is what I said any different?

Go back to my argument concerning rabid pro-lifers and the abortion clinic bombers. Again, legally, pro-lifer speech has been curtailed because the courts have found that it promotes an atmosphere of violence. Tell me how this is different.

And I disagree with your assumption that it could be anyone for any reason. While it is possible, the safe bet is that this was politically motivated, given the spate of attacks on other GOP campaign headquarters carried out by VPSLAs (See comment above for definition). It is a reasonable assumption, but I very carefully indicated the possibility that it might have been a random act.

The questions above are not rhetorical; they form the basis for my post. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Like I asked peggy, if you support the use of this principle in hate speech and harrassment legislation, then how can you fault applying identical logic here?

Anyway, I appreciate you giving me your opinion, even though I disagree with all except the last paragraph of it.

I personally blame Michael Moore and every single person who has spewed the hate rhetoric of "war for oil" and "selected not elected" and all that other vile crap. You whip people into a frenzy of rage and then some of them do asshole things--and then you want to act shocked when someone looks askance at you for being such an asshole?

I've never been more alienated from the Democratic Party than I am right now, and I spent a year begging and pleading Democrats to nominate someone I could consider voting for. Instead they embraced hate, they embraced the Michael Moores and the Howard Deans, and now they're wanting to pretend that burning swastikas on people's lawns and shooting at people has NOTHING TO DO with their hate-rhetoric.

I got no apologies: I DO blame people like South Knox Bubba for embracing hatred, rage, and irrationality. Not directly, but indirectly, you're damned right.

Quote me.

Rich,
I think you've sought to elevate this comment thread toward a more general discussion of the bitter political climate in this country, and that's fine. I certainly agree that their is a lot of hate, violent speech, and violent action going on out there, from fringe elements on both sides.
That said, I think you could have written a post about that without singling out Bubba. You've said that you're "not welcome" at his site, and though I don't know how long that's been the case, it does seem that you continue to hold a personal grudge toward him. My point is that if the essential argument of your original post was to condemn the violence that can result from the influence of the words of hate-filled people, then- and Manish hit it here- it would have been more judicious to cite the vile crap that goes on at DU and LGF, not Bubba's place.

I don't know what else to say about the shooter in Kville, except that he/she is a criminal, just as those who've perpetrated violence/vandalism anywhere for any reason are. If they make anyone "look bad," I guess it's all of us, our society. I don't spend much time wondering about their logic or wishing I could have a thoughtful conversation with them. (PETA radicals come to mind, but that's another subject).

The acronym you've devised for the crazies is great-except it has the tell-tale conservative's (and Limbaugh lover?) word in it: "agenda." No jerk with a gun has a terribly complicated "agenda," and if I personally have an "agenda," no jerk with a gun will expedite it, that's for sure.

By way of appreciating some of what you say, I have thought for quite some time (but not blogged it much) that there is what I call a Cult of Crass in our society these days, i.e., it's hip to be mean, rude, crude, vulgar, etc.
It's everywhere, in the media, in music, and in our personal lives. It's wrong. It's dangerous. And I'm not buying.

Perhaps if you want to lay blame or responsibility for our terribly vicious political climate today, you might want to let the buck stop all the way at the top- yeah, George W. Bush. (cue the Can of Worms) As someone who opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go, I was astounded by his flippant reference to "focus groups," when asked to comment on the millions of people here and abroad who had taken to the streets to protest the incipient invasion.
And of course Bush gets me right where I live, too, in that he seeks to codify the bigotry of the Christian Right, and deny me (and millions of others) the right to marry our own true loves.

In 2000 Bush pledged to be a "uniter." He certainly has been. At least half the electorate here and untold millions around the world are now united, in new and sad mistrust of the USA.

Rich, I bet we do agree on some things. I'd be more inclined to visit your site regularly though, if I didn't have to only confront the things that divide us, and/or as a Democrat, feel obliged to bear the lion's share of responsibility for the awful political climate in this country.

I'm not sure where (if anywhere) this thread is going, but I'll check back. Thanks.

p.s. Gee, great to see Dean here. I commented a few times at his site months ago, and was berated, insulted, and dismissed as a troll. It was d-esmaying.

I forgot to proofread for spelling, punctuation, etc. Sparky ate my dictionary and my copy of "Elements of Style." Damn puppy.

You can borrow my copy if you'd like. I keep it right next to my Manual for Writers and Editors.

As I said to manish, I used Bubba as an example because the shooting was local, and he's a local blogger. Although I was careful to make sure my post included not just what Bubba says, but what some of his more ardent commentors say as well, it seems most readers are assuming I only referred to Bubba himself, when that was not the case.

The comments there can really turn into a cesspool. When I read a comment suggesting we'd be better off if Bush had been scragged in Viet Nam, I don't know how much lower things can get.

As for blame, I don't care who started it. It goes well past the current administration though, and there have been practitioners on both sides of the political divide. I'm much more interested in how we can stop it. As I said, I do what I can here, and in conversation with folks in real life.

As for agenda, I don't have a problem with that word. Democrats have a plan for the country; that's their agenda. Republicans have a plan for the country; that's their agenda. To me, it's a neutral word. In the acronym, it refers not to the idiot with the gun, but to his sympathy with the liberal plan. Frankly, there are idiots on both sides that I'm sure all of us wish would shut up and go home. Michael Savage springs to mind for me.

By the way, I don't hold a grudge against bubba, far from it. We've met in person, and I found him to be intelligent. charming, and well spoken. I guess I have trouble reconciling the image of the man I met with the muck-raking firebrand he plays on his blog, and the contrast fascinated me. I guess there was a part of me hoping to find the other Bubba, since I thought he was pretty cool.

But it's apparent to me now that either he never existed, or is gone forever. In either case, there's no point in continuing since all I'm doing is pissing him off, which is why I'm not commenting there anymore. I'm glad I followed the thread though, so I caught your message.

I think this has been worthwhile, and I lok forward to your comments on future posts.

They aren't all political...usually.

Ok, then.

Dean, be careful not to fall into the same trap the folks I'm talking about did. Just as not all conservatives think Clinton was the anti-Christ, not all liberals have embraced hatred. In fact, I'd bet that those who do are a very vocal minority, and the vast majority are middle of the roaders. Remember that the blogosphere self selects for political activists, so you can expect to find extreme positions over-represented.

The fact is that Democrats rejected the extremism of Howard Dean, and selected John Kerry since he appeared to be the most electable of the candidates, not because he was the most liberal. It's no accident that the Ticket is Kerry-Edwards, and not Kerry-Dean, or Kerry-Clark.

Remember that the Democratic Party is in a tough position. In order to win, they must attract the middle, which has moved to the right over the last decade, while energizing their base, which has moved to the left. The bitter 2000 election has left a lot of people feeling angry, and while you and I believe their anger is misguided, to them it is righteous.

It's a tragedy of Greek proportions that the attacks on 9/11 happened when they did because they threw the differences between conservatives and liberals into sharp relief, hiding those beliefs we share in the shadows. We never got the chance to heal after the 2000 election, although progress was being made. IIRC the No Child Left Behind legislation was crafted by Ted Kennedy, who received the full support of the President. (I could be mistaken here. I know they worked together on some education legislation; I just don't remember clearly which it was.)

How do we as conservatives act to assuage liberal anger? The only real answer is that we can't, anger is a personal issue that they will have to deal with themselves, but I do know that returning it only makes it worse. The healing will have to begin at our level, one person at a time. I welcome any and all Democrats, liberals, libertarians, or whatever to come and discuss/debate their philosophies. There's room for everybody.

Well said, Rich. I hope Dean takes it to heart.

And you're right-anger is a personal issue. I would hope that some of the better writers on the Democrat side can and do affect Republicans' anger. (Ok, ok, my rose-colored glasses are pinching my nose...)

Everybody with any sense knows that the Republicans shot up their own headquarters.

I don't know any Democrats who steal yard signs. But, the Kerry signs sure do get ripped off. The Bush/Cheney signs in my neighborhood haven't been touched.

Hello Tess,

Do you have a chain of reasoning or any evidence for your claim? Did the republicans in West Virginia shoot up their own headquarters? Were the AFL-CIO raids on campaign headquarters in several states actually orchestrated by Karl Rove? The circumstances do suggest that this was the act of somebody with a grudge against the Bush administration.

Also, please go easy on the "everybody with any sense knows" stuff. I'd like to keep things civil here. Just because folks disagree doesn't mean they are senseless.

Also, I don't know any conservatives who are ripping off Kerry signs, but I know there are some people out there doing it, just as I know that some people are tearing up Bush signs.

Are they conservatives and liberals, or just a bunch of juvenile punks? I don't know, but my guess is the former; the latter usually stick to mailboxes, stop signs and barricade lights. I had a grade school buddy whose life ambition was to steal one of every street sign in our neighborhood. He was well on his way to making his goal when I moved away.