December 5th, 2005
An interesting debate has been sparked over at the Sickening: KU Religion Prof beaten up comments section on whether we, Liberals and Progressives, should resort to arming ourselves. It all started with:
Liberals best get armed. (3.89/49)
I’ve been saying it for a while.
Me, I fancy my katana.
Anything’s possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson
As you may have heard, and as the diary above tells us, a university professor that had recently stirred controversy for intending to teach a course on so-called “intelligent design” as mythology has been beaten up by two cowards for, presumably, his position on the subject. It was the action of these two ignorant cowards which prompted Cheez Whiz’s comment…
And, apparently, he’s not the only one thinking it:
the 2nd Amendment (3.8 /48)
It’s for liberals, too.
by chumley on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:39:29 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | none 1: Unproductive 2: Marginal 3: Good 4: Excellent ]
The Second Amendment… ( 3.85 / 41 )
…is especially for liberals.
Republicans oppose abortion — it happens eighteen years too early.
by Buzzer on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:42:24 PM PST
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… ( 4.00 / 20 )
Time for all of us to consider exercising our 2nd Amendment rights to ensure our 1st Amendment rights…
…in fact, we should know all our rights guaranteed by the the Constitution .
He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither
by joby on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:46:08 PM PST
Gun Control ( 4.00 / 3 )
… is being able to stay on target for a full magazine and keep a tight group. ;-)
Yes, I carry. I actually needed it once when my friend’s ex tried coming after me because I told her to have him arrested–abuse and rape aren’t “loving” acts towards your girlfriend
You many now return to your regularly scheduled chaos.
http://godsdead.blogspot.com
by becca00 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:12:38 PM PST
I’m generally…. ( none / 0 )
…in favor of gun control, but Bush is making me reconsider my views. And also, if a government ever actually comes around that tries to take away guns, I’ll bet it will be a right-wing government and not a left-wing one.
by metal prophet on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:25:17 PM PST
yep ( none / 0 )
if a government ever actually comes around that tries to take away guns, I’ll bet it will be a right-wing government and not a left-wing one.
Easy bet.
One of the first things Hitler did was enact very strict gun-control Laws.
We have no desire to offend you — unless you are a twit!
by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:32:45 PM PST
If you were at all involved with other Democratic grassroots supporters during the 2004 elections, as I was, you probably heard similar comments as the ones listed above while canvassing, phone banking or while riding a bus to so-called swing states. The above attest to the incredible frustration and alienation that many of our fellow Liberals, Progressives and Democrats feel at the moment — many of us simply feel that our political values are not reflected in our MSM and, too, that too few brave souls exist that are willing to stand up in defense of all that we believe in and respect. Moreover, the above statements are a clear testament of the polarization that the Bush administration and that the corrupt Republican party have fomented since the stolen elections of 2000 — and all that’s transpired since then.
Because I’ve heard similar statements before, and because I understand and share the frustration, I’m not at all surprised to read the above comments at DailyKos.com. Now, no one is calling for violence; however, clearly we’re in the mood to avail ourselves of our 2nd Amendment rights, as the amendment is popularly interpreted. Well, perhaps there’s an opportunity here for Liberal and Progressive arm aficionados… why should we concede any part of our constitution to right-wing lunatics like the NRA et al? Why not start Progressive gun clubs which can eventually morph into a competing national organization against the NRA… imagine that… a Liberal Rifle Association in the South and in rural America in support of sensible gun legislature where it makes sense.
I don’t own a gun… I never have owned a gun, but as a former Marine I know how to operate and handle one. I’ve looked at purchasing an arm and at joining some sort of shooting club, but I’ve been reluctant to join any arms organization because of the NRA and their association with Republicans. Additionally, I support gun control legislation and strict waiting periods, so on that count alone I could not support the NRA given its position on those issues. Now, if there were some gun organization that also supported responsible gun legislature and, as a bonus, supported Democrats, I would defiantly join it.
I have no idea how one would go about forming such a national organization; however, starting Liberal/Progressive gun clubs shouldn’t be that difficult… this is something that we can do with our friends, co-workers and neighbors… I know that there are many Liberal and Progressive gun enthusiast that would love an opportunity like this. How do we get started?
November 4th, 2004
How disappointing… some in the Democratic party are suggesting that we have to make our message “more mainstream.” This sort post-eleciton analysis is precisely what many are afraid of in the progressive/Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Here’s what we do know from this past election: all of the following self-identified ideological groups, liberals, moderates, independents and progressives, voted for Kerry in greater numbers then they voted for Bush. The only ideological group that voted for Bush in much greater numbers were ideological conservatives. Now, here’s one more thing that we know, in 2000 conservatives/Evangelical Christians composed about 20-25% of voters, in 2004 conservatives/Evangelical Christians represented about 30-35% of voters. Conclusion, Bush carried only one ideological group, conservatives/Evangelical Christians, and more of them came out to vote in 2004. Now, how one can jump to the conclusion that They (Republicans) somehow represent the “mainstream,” I frankly don’t know. Clearly Bush received nearly 4 million votes more than Kerry; however, in a nation with 217,767,000 citizens of voting age, and where 114,324,228 (52.5%) turned out to vote, I think it’s defeatist for Democratic supporters to conclude: Oh, we got to be more like Republicans if we want to win. No, that’s the wrong conclusion, and the sort of thinking that does not earn respect from anybody. We, Democrats, liberals, progressives, moderates, independents (whatever you want to call yourself), have got to be more like Us and less like Them, and make sure that We present clear distinctions between Us and Them.
Here’s something I presented elsewhere, which I’ll post again, because it’s something that We have to keep in mind as We build up to for the next fight:
“In 1964, Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) beat Barry Goldwater (Republican) by 23% points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn’t give up. They didn’t spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon (Republican) crushed Humphrey (Democrat) in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose Bush, now isn’t the time to feel sorry for yourself. Now is the time to get to work.”
It took the Right wing 30+ years to get to where they are — We’ve taken the first step, and We must now follow up with action. Please, if you support Democratic/Progressive values, find local groups that will point in the right direction.
I’d recommend to start here:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
And don’t compromise your core convictions and moral values of Hope over Fear, and of Tolerance as a Family Value.
—————————————————–
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!”
- William Shakespeare, Henry V
September 10th, 2004
1. The so-called liberal media are just a bunch of fucking wimps that are just scared shitless about being labeled “liberal,” so they never expose the factual conservative dominance of our media industry.
2. Let me explain what I mean by “factual conservative dominance of our media industry.”
Basically, the conservative movement (through its various think-tanks, foundations, wealthy donors, etc.) learned to game the system/media some 30 years ago, when the conservative movement began its re-ascendance in our country (culminating in Mr. Reagan’s election and continuing to the present). (As reference, look up: The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute — there are others, but these are the principal ones, specially the American Enterprise Institute.)
Furthermore, conservatives of the 1950s and 1960s knew the following: A) They no longer belonged in the (Southern) Democratic party, as the party advocated Civil Rights and the enfranchisement of African Americans; B) They needed to jump ship, so they essentially hijacked the Republican party (note the lack of so-called Northern Rockefeller Republicans in today’s GOP); C) Conservatives of the period devised a strategy to flame the embers of White-male resentment against the politics of the late 1950s and 1960s, accordingly the Southern Strategy was born.
And this, essentially, is the genesis of the modern Republican party. Note how today’s Republican power base is contingent on these two factors: A) The South, and; B) Let’ say, the subtle, encouragement of White-male resentment against a popular culture that many of them feel rejects the White-male iconography.
Of course the preceding brushes over the past 40/50 years in very broad strokes, but I had to provide it as background to support how the “factual conservative dominance of our media industry” has occurred.
i. The conservative movement has laid down a well disciplined, and well funded, infrastructure that’s geared to challenge (and dismantle) the legitimacy of: academia, the news media and a certain brand of popular culture.
ii. To compete against academia, conservatives established think tanks and funded conservative intellectuals. Moreover, to challenge the news media conservative created what was, at the time, new media outlets: talk radio and direct mail (note that Republicans were the first to set up what still is the most extensive and sophisticated voter data-base in the country). Thirdly, popular culture is often used by conservatives to drive wedge issues among the electorate (i.e., homosexuality, feminism, guns, etc.).
iii. Its taken about three decades, but the combination of the factors I listed above have lead to what I referred to as Mr. Brock’s Republican Noise Machine model:
a. Talk radio is dominated by conservatives, which is where many of these stories originate. Accordingly, they give some buzz to whatever story they want to play up that day.
b. A network of quasi-news organizations (including right-wing blogs) provide some ink, to put some meat on the story and get things boiling.
c. Cable Network talking heads (i.e., Hardball, O’Rielly Factor, Sean Hannity, Scarborough, Miller, et al.) then pick up the story, once there’s enough of buzz behind it.
d. At this point the mainstream media is forced to run the story, since by now the item is “newsworthy.”
Now, the key part about the preceding model is this: After 30 years of a concerted and well organized effort to convince the public that the so-called liberal media cannot be trusted, journalists and the public have complete internalized this notion, and don’t even challenge the assumption. Furthermore, it is under these conditions that “Liberal” has become a “dirty word” and, conversely, “Conservative” has become the preferred ideological label for a significant segment of the public, specially White-males. So, finally, we have a system wherein American journalists are afraid to be perceived as having a liberal-bias, for fear of proving the myth true; and, the general public simply assumes that they know what they know, and simply assume that the so-called liberal media must have a liberal bias.
3. Because strong ideological conservatives in the media know that what I have described is true, they know that the wimpy mainstream media journalist will not mount a direct and frontal challenge on the conservative modus operandi. And, if such a challenge were to be raised, conservatives in the media (and the public) would simply charge such journalists as being liberals, thus proving the myth; and, unfortunately, a lot of members of the public would simply accept the charge without questioning it.
Now, here’s what I wrote in another post about the true media bias:
“[T]he media is driven by “commercial” and “sensationalistic” interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us — all U.S. citizens — have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they’re doing of covering substantive issues.”
I also offered the following as sources for further reading, and to provide an alternative view-point on what we think we already know:
March 8th, 2004
Over the past year, nine men and one woman stepped forward to challenge Bush on our behalf when many said that he was simply unbeatable. During that period one fact was made clear: Our collective interests are better guarded, respected and represented with a Democrat in the White House. And it now appears that likely Democrat to carry our flag will be John Kerry. I know that some of us, myself included, supported other candidates during the early primaries; however, now it’s time to walk side-by-side, and provide Kerry the tools he’ll need to stand-up to Bush (and his arsenal of millions of dollars).
Please click here to support John Kerry!
Bush will try to rob us of our flag bearer by distorting Kerry’s record, and by painting him as un-patriotic and un-fit to govern. Bush will use his arsenal of millions of dollars to distort, ridicule and caricature Kerry. We simply cannot let Bush rob us of our representative. The best way to counter Bush’s attacks is by providing Kerry with the resources to stand-up to Bush when the attacks commence.
Please click here to support John Kerry!
Be part of the “$100 Revolution” by contributing a total of $100 between now and November — every little bit counts. If each one of us contributes $100, and if we get our friends to also contribute, we’ll shake up the system in a way that no lobbyist can match. By joining the $100 Revolution — together — we’ll have taken the first step towards reclaiming our government. Let’s start this November by reclaiming the White House!
Please contribute whatever you can: $10, $25, $50 or more!
Please click here to support John Kerry!
