This is what passes for humor among the American Right, on buttons being sold outside the Republican convention in 1996:

"Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that our country needs him?"

The same joke was about in the U.K after the election of Bush senior.

"Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that our country needs him?"

Anyone who thinks that isn't a direct invitation to assassinate the then-president has their head up their ass.

Anyone else notice a big difference between the most recent inauguration and the previous two? At Obama's, the talk was about bringing people together, bipartisanship, inclusion. At Dubya's, what did we hear? It's us against "them." "Our 'enemies' are determined to strike us...." Etc. etc.

The contrast between how the right views the world versus how the left does couldn't have been more obvious. The right sees enemies everywhere they look, and thinks the way to handle them is with brute force and no mercy. They then apply that "enemy" label to anyone who disagrees with them or who looks different. It's only a matter of time before the delusional nutjob with easy access to guns goes off. He's convinced all those "enemies" are going to get him if he doesn't strike first.

Liberals just aren't that violent. You'll never hear about a liberal shooting up the Heritage Foundation HQ, will you?

Now I doubt someone like Ebon thinks "all conservatives are terrorists," but Ebon, you gotta admit, it's the extreme right that is reasonably identifiable as the main supply of the fascist fanaticism that whet Adkisson's murderous appetite - not the more generic "American Right." And I'll bet we could agree that many of these same silly pundits are actually quite fascist and/or extreme while masquerading and/or being portrayed under a false moderate pretense. I've heard some scary stuff come from the mouths of supposed moderates, comparable to the lewdest obscenities I've heard from the Reconstructionists and their ilk.

You're right. Aside from promoting the same dysfunctional and destructive religious ideologies that these psychos fixate on, impeding efforts to treat mental illness in a way that would help prevent this sort of thing by championing social service cuts, fighting tooth and nail any effort at all to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal and dangerously unstable, and apparently considering it more of a problem that moderates and liberals sometimes seem to lump them in with the "extreme right" than that certain of their ideological allies believe acts of terrorism are morally justified and a legitimate way to further their agenda, the American Right as a whole hasn't done anything wrong.

I'm gonna have to reverse my opinion. I now think you and Ebonmuse are right, and I think I was unnecessarily framing Ebon's general usage of the word responsibility in a context of meted legal punishments. Anyone who advocates murder is certainly indirectly responsible when the person they persuade follows through, and that's always been obvious to me.

But still, there are so many possible shades of gray here that make the whole question of culpability and distribution very nuanced, and that was a major chord in my progression, so to speak. Not to mention this raises some fussy freedom of speech issues. If freedom of speech should be absolute, then we cannot hold these pundits responsible, we must turn to the system that permits these pundits to act irresponsibly.

And I still think the "blood of the dead is on their hands" thing was sappy. But hey, I'm just another mouth talking. Cheers to good volleys.

Should Little Wayne, Biggie Smalls, B-Legit, Ice-T (who explicitly advocated the killing of police), Geto Boys and countless others be held responsible for the countless gang-related murders that occur daily in this country? If so, to what degree and how do we reasonably assess and distribute culpability? If not, why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the silly pundits in question?

Should they be held responsible? Yes.

How do we assess and distribute culpability? They are indirectly responsible, (just like the pundits in question) so it's difficult to answer the question. Obviously, we can't throw anybody in prison, but without their negative influence, the murders in question might not have happened.

Sower and sewer are pronounced the same way, but not sewer as in drain. But, to my mind, the needle and thread analogy also works like the planting seeds analogy, kind of like weaving - a web of deception. So, that's where I got confused, I guess.

Your points are well taken, but that my analogy can use some strengthening does not entail that my argument fails. Jokela was not the ideal analogy, and you're right to note the distinction between Darwin and today's conservative pundits. Taking your observation even further, Darwin himself was explicitly disinterested in championing his own ideas and we can deduce that he likely would not have been comfortable with those who did, especially to justify a murderous spree. So I can grant you all that.

However, the motivation behind my disagreement with Ebonmuse here is on the principle that people must bear responsibility for their own actions. Ebon has argued before that lack of clarity in the Bible can be rightfully blamed for certain religiously motivated atrocities. I strongly disagree.

So, how about a better analogy, eh? How about what society refers to as "gangsta rap?" More so than conservative punditry, this musical genre advocates the killing of certain individuals in our society. Should Little Wayne, Biggie Smalls, B-Legit, Ice-T (who explicitly advocated the killing of police), Geto Boys and countless others be held responsible for the countless gang-related murders that occur daily in this country? If so, to what degree and how do we reasonably assess and distribute culpability? If not, why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the silly pundits in question?

Now sure, I think the pundits in question are ignoramuses, and that anyone can take Ann Coulter so seriously should have been dealt with long before such people were allowed to acquire guns. But realistically, regardless of what some outtawhack pundit or allegedly holy book says, it's up to people to keep their own heads on straight!

So, when I hear Ebon say,

In a very real sense, the leaders of the conservative movement bear partial responsibility for this horror, and the blood of the dead is on their hands.

I simply can't agree sans further justification. Does he side with Tipper Gore and equally accuse Little Wayne, Biggie Smalls, B-Legit, Ice-T (who explicitly advocated the killing of police) and Geto Boys?

TX CHL Instructor,

I think your interpretation of Ebon's wording is reasonable, especially when we have this sentence:

This murderous mentality is an outgrowth of everything that the American right, as a movement, has spent the past several decades cultivating.

Now I doubt someone like Ebon thinks "all conservatives are terrorists," but Ebon, you gotta admit, it's the extreme right that is reasonably identifiable as the main supply of the fascist fanaticism that whet Adkisson's murderous appetite - not the more generic "American Right." And I'll bet we could agree that many of these same silly pundits are actually quite fascist and/or extreme while masquerading and/or being portrayed under a false moderate pretense. I've heard some scary stuff come from the mouths of supposed moderates, comparable to the lewdest obscenities I've heard from the Reconstructionists and their ilk.

David K. Welch,

Your comment February 22, 2009, 3:29 pm was relevant.