SPLC: Where is the map of propaganda groups?

After seeing this Dylan Ratigan video from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which grouped ‘Patriot’ groups with hate groups, I decided to look into how these groups are defined.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhKjlItVhJY

From the Southern Poverty Law Center – definition of ‘Patriot’ groups:

Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located.

The list doesn’t imply theses groups advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist, but Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center does imply these groups advocate violence in this video.

The kinds of things we’ve seen in the last year are for instance the murder of six law enforcement officials by people, members of the radical right. We have seen plots to murder Obama, we have seen plots to murder black people, to murder jews and so on. I think these are all prompted by the rise of Obama to power. These real changes that are happening around us, people are really angry and hurting out there and many of them feel quite ready to take action.

The terms hate groups and radical right and patriot groups were used throughout this video from Southern Poverty Law Center. I can’t tell exactly which group Potok means in referring to violence, because all these organizations have become an amalgam of one group to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But what they (Oath Keepers) are really about is the idea that Americans are about to be herded into concentration camps that martial law is going to be imposed, that foreign troops are going to be on American soil, putting Americans done and so on. If what the Oath Keepers did was merely plead one more time to defend the Constitution there would be nothing remotely bad about it.

I can’t say if Americans are about to be herded into concentration camps, but Americans were herded into concentration camp during WWII, so it’s not delusional to believe it could happen.

What is really worrying about a group like the Oath Keepers is this is a group of people who are armed by the rest of society. And in the case of police officers these are people who sometimes have the power of life and death over you or me, and what that means if these men and women are animated by ideas that are completely false, completely paranoid and groundless, you’ve got to worry about who they are going to see as the real enemy and what kinds of decisions they make in stressful situation.

Not everyone knows about the Readiness Exercise of 1984, the plan by the US to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of civil unrest. Calling these fears completely false, completely paranoid and groundless is worrisome and inaccurate.

Whether the tea party movement becomes something more like the patriot group, more radical yet, or whether it becomes something else is something we don’t know yet.

So worrying over what the Tea Party movement might become isn’t paranoia, but worrying about what the government has done in the past being repeated is paranoia? The underlying argument is that Mark Potok’s paranoia about ‘Patriot’ groups is the good kind of paranoia and the concerns of ‘Patriot’ groups is the bad kind of paranoia.

Summing up the SPLC position on patriot groups: It’s OK to verbally defend the Constitution, but citizens possessing anything other than harsh words to defend the Constitution are dangerous.

The SPLC has a map of hate groups on their site.

Where is the map of propaganda groups?

I’m Retarded but I’m not Braindead

The debate over using the R-word leaves me wondering why it is politically correct to call others braindead. Why is it politically incorrect to call someone slow, while calling someone mindless OK?

Retarded means slow, as in slow to learn or grasp a concept, but still has a brain and can learn. In political discussions those with opposing views are often labeled as mindless, braindead, or zombies. They don’t always come right out and call you stupid for disagreeing, but thats the implication.

Examples:

I was surprised because I was sure that she was a thinking person’s Republican, a moderate suburbanite not captured by the tea bagger set.

And it’s triply amazing, of course, because as every right-thinking person knows, Barack Obama is soft on terrorism and wants America to fail.

You have the vote of every thinking person.

I will not dwell on that, but any thinking person should recognize the difference and not blur the discussion.

Each of these basically states is you disagree with the views presented you don’t think, you have no mind. I’m retarded, as in being slow, because I don’t always catch being labeled a braindead zombie at first glance. As every slow thinking person knows: I’m retarded but I’m not braindead, because I know when I’m being insulted for disagreeing.

Name-calling is Fun and Entertaining – and Drowning Debate: The Jon Stewart / Keith Olbermann Saga

Here is Keith Olbermann’s response to Jon Stewart over Olbermann’s namecalling towards Scott Brown. At the end, Keith Olbermann says “You’re right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZylQXm-vis

The ad hominem spam in political discussion is so abundant it’s become an issue unto itself. Unemployment and a shrinking economy have to take a backseat to political pundits personal views of others. To quote Stewart on this subject, “Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.” (Jon Stewart on CNN’s Crossfire)

The irony is that at the end of the Crossfire video, Jon Stewart gets sucked into the namecalling by calling Tucker Carlson a “dick.” I’m not defending Olbermann; calling someone a “dick” is a far cry from calling someone “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

The namecalling is so loud now its drowning out debate about the issues. Most political talk these days is focused on getting the best dig in and not the best point across. The king of the hill battle to arouse prejudices needs to die down. It would be an improvement for Olbermann to refer to Scott Brown as a “dick” next time.

Even when you are well aware of the damage caused by personal attacks, it’s easy to get drawn into the battle. It takes a great deal of self-discipline not to reach for the flamethrower when attacked or when there is a strong disagreement on an issue.

To teach themselves some self-discipline and so someone can benefit, the pundits should put up their own swear jar. Each time they drift away from the issue at hand and go with the personal attacks, they have to throw some money in the jar to be donated to charity.

Alex Jones calls Glenn Beck a Slimeball Traitor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAYXOpZFXQw

Most of the name calling between the pundits isn’t very news worthy, but Alex Jones sounds so much like Sam Kinison its difficult not to laugh even when he is being serious.

Jones compares Beck to Grima Wormtongue in Lord of the Rings. Its a bit dated, but I think of most TV pundits as Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes from A Face in the Crowd.

Congressmen Ron Paul and Anthony Weiner On Massachusetts Election Results

Ron Paul “What the people are upset about is the government can no longer function”

Anthony Weiner on Ron Paul “I’m not sure he’s in touch with the mothership”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36rzWr1JHU&feature=player_embedded

Weiner evidently didn’t understand the anger message from the election results. I’m sure the hounds will be released shortly.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Witch?

In the anti-fandom of politics, there is a Wicked Witch of the left (Nancy Pelosi) and a Wicked Witch of the Right (Sarah Palin). Somehow Pelosi usurped the wicked witch of the left position formerly held by Hillary Clinton. Palin might also be replaced for Wicked Witch of the Right by Michele Bachmann.

Something about these individuals seems to bring out pure hatred from people with opposing political views. Almost anything they say is like pouring gasoline on the anti-fans’ fire. I don’t understand the vitriol response, because there isn’t anything I’ve heard them say that I haven’t heard from someone else before.

I don’t believe it’s a male vs. female issue because Obama and Cheney have comparable anti-fan bases. Pundits Olbermann and Beck have their anti-fan audience. I only used female figures because the wicked witch analogy is funny, and the male analogies are usually Hitler and Stalin.

I’ve heard others describe every word spoken by the people mentioned as “like hearing nails on a chalkboard.” The hated people didn’t create liberal and conservative values, so why the complete disdain for their every spoken word?

The reason for the hatred is these people are viewed as the embodiment of polarized viewpoints. Each of them represents a complete persona of what is wrong in this country to their political polar opposites. For the anti-fan, the view is, “If only we didn’t have people like [Pelosi | Palin | Clinton | Backmann], we wouldn’t have to worry about the country going into the toilet.”

To all the anti-fans out there, I am your anti-fan, because your hand is on the plunger. The biggest fear I have is that only what anti-fans have to say will be considered newsworthy. The underlying issues are getting buried under the belching bile of whom or what people are against and not about what values they support.

Anti-fans – next time you hear the “nails on a chalkboard” sound, use that energy generated to speak out for the value you wish to protect and avoid the personification of opposing views. I’d rather hear stories of heroes and heroines than the tales of big bad witches.

Shoot the messenger – Fat Ones are Easy Targets

I was browsing through the latest topics on Crooks and Liars , and this topic about Candy Crowley Still Touting ‘Security Moms’ Nonsense stood out because the comments about Candy Crowley were pretty harsh. This comment on Crooks and Liars stood out to me. “She is now a partisan hack”—because I remember conservatives saying Crowley is partisan over at NewsBusters in CNN’s Crowley: NY 23’s Hoffman the Choice of ‘Tea Bag Partyers?’

Comments from Crooks and Liars about Crowley using Conservative Talking Points:

“Security moms is a smoke screen for repub talking points!!”

“Candy loves her some uncheck republican talking points.”

Comment on Candy’s Weight:

“Rove is getting divorced , Porky Pig and Petunia here should get hooked up.”

Comments from NewsBusters about Crowley using Liiberal Talking Points:

“Please, bt. Candy Crowley? “Kisser”? Blehhhhhhhh! The “Mainstream” Media: By liberals. For liberals.”

“Their insults are simply a quick way to verify their ideology, they don’t get a rise out of me, either.”

Comment on Candy’s Weight:

“She hardly looks like a “Candy” anymore. She may have been ‘Candy’ material several decades ago but today she looks more like a bag of marshmellow [sic] peeps that got left on the truck dashboard in the hot sun and all the little eyes have run together.”

In Candy Crowley’s defense, it is her job to as a political correspondent to share her views. When you share political views, they are supposed to be your views with your own bias. There is insight gained from simply reporting different sides of issues, but that isn’t Crowley’s role all the time. Crowley is expected to draw upon two decades of covering elections and offer her own analysis.

Crowley is old and fat – to me that gives Crowley more credibility because you don’t see a lot of older, heavyset women on television news. That fact that Crowley is still on TV when so many other women are put out to pasture to me says someone finds her views valuable. Anderson Cooper words it much more eloquently than me: “She’s not the stereo typical political reporter, which, for me adds to her charm.”

Bill Ayers is pretty liberal from my point of view. Ayers described President Obama as a “moderate, pragmatic, compromising politician” and from Ayers far-left perspective, the President is a moderate. What I’ve gathered from comparing views from liberals and conservatives is partisanship is relative. It doesn’t matter where you own views fall in the left/right continuum–if someone’s view is to the left of your views they are liberals; if the views are to the right of yours, they are conservatives.

Because of the mindset “a view far from my own view is a very biased view,” I now have some sympathy for those in the media, because it seems you are damned if you and damned if you don’t. It doesn’t seem to matter what you say because you are bound to offend someone. I’m surprised after being attacked by both sides for being partisan she doesn’t just give up and go full tilt partisan because that’s where the money is.

Rush Limbaugh – Hypocritical Alert Level Orange

The left and right commentary today has turned into a hypocrite battle. There are lots of people sharing wishful thoughts for Limbaugh’s death. Then people starting saying how awful it is to wish someone dead. Which, of course, leads to the comparisons of times conservatives were wishing a liberal would die. The next phase is comparing each side to the other, each claiming the other side is more hateful.

The religious hypocrisy will be overlooked by both sides. Liberals will make fun of conservatives for praying for Limbaugh’s recovery or say it’s bad karma to hope someone dies. The conservatives will point out for liberals its OK to talk about karma, but not about prayer. In the end, they will both point out the political incorrectness of the other–and the funny thing is they are right about each other.

The battles between these groups are often the news story of the day. Their battles are even less newsworthy and less entertaining to me than Britney Spears and Kevin Federline battles. The only thing newsworthy about the group of political entertainers would be if they spoke with each other without resorting to ad hominems.

The crew of Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews are more akin to the world of professional wrestling personalities than to journalists or reporters. They’ll put their face right up to the camera or microphone and angrily besmirch and then challenge their counterparts to wrestle. They all keep each other in business–just as Andre the Giant vs. Hulk Hogan battles made money for both wrestlers.

When Rush Limbaugh is back on the airwaves, we will hear this battle all over again. Rush Limbaugh will bring up all the death wishes and poke fun at the “caring and tolerant” liberals. Keith Olbermann will then drag out every clip available of Rush Limbaugh hoping someone else dies. The ball bounces over to Bill O’Reilly, who points out Keith Olbermann doing the same…and on and on it goes.

I don’t want Rush Limbaugh to die; I just want all attention paid to the news personalities’ battles with one another to die.

The Christmas Spirit

Christmas time in politics. Listen to the harmonic sounds of demonizing the opposition. This just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.(sarcasm)

Oh Come All Ye Tea Baggers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kmccnhCquY&feature=player_embedded

The 12 Days Of Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhenXd0yH7A&feature=related

You might be a Aryan, Racist, Birther, Fanatic if…

This video reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy –”You might be a redneck if” jokes. If you are against government health care reform, you might be an Aryan, racist, birther, fanatic.

I’m against government health care reform/takeover and against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So in Jeff Foxworthy speak – I might be: an isolationist, Aryan, pinko, racist, unpatriotic, birther, terrorist sympathizer, militia member.

The goal is simple; pile on the straw-man attacks until people are afraid to speak out for fear they’ll be labeled an extremist.