The glue-sniffers don't get that using hate rhetoric for political sport has its consequences. I have not stated that Census worker William Sparkman was absolutely murdered as a result of Rep. Michelle Bachman's dangerous rhetoric. Here is what I did write:
"I also think it is absolutely fair to ask why someone would target a census worker (and sadly, a single father of two)? I have never heard of a Census worker being murdered before. I am sure it happens and has probably happened even in recent times, but I simply have never read or heard another instance of such a crime. So at the very least we can say it is a rare crime.
And I think that it is also fair to question the role Rep. Michelle Bachmann (the psychotic, drooling, knuckle-dragger, ill-informed conspiracy theorist, birther and hater masquerading as a member of Congress) jihad against the Census Bureau had something to do with it."
Yes, it is entirely fair to ask if whipping up anti-Census paranoia has led to the brutal murder of a Census worker. Not only it is fair to ask this question, it is something that should have been pointed out to people like Bachmann, who are ignorant and use fear as a political tool. There are plenty of militant elements in our society who need little encouragement. When a government official starts peddling paranoia to those militants, someone might take it upon themselves to act - as is usually the case when inciting violence.
I have not read anyone who has said that Bachmann's paranoid propaganda is absolutely why Sparkman was murdered. But I have read plenty of reasonable questions about the relationship between political hate-speech and political hate-crimes, such as what appears to be the case with Sparkman. We don't know why he was ultimately murdered of course. But how he was murdered (no, not suicide, unless he had help of course) surely raises a very real possibility that he was murdered for political reasons. As I have said, we won't know for sure - because the local law enforcement folks are not talking and are apparently still considering that a man who is bound, gagged, seemingly tortured, and has his eyes taped shut may have committed suicide (yes, go on chasing that theory).
But we can ask these questions and we should.
Yet the glue-sniffing community is running crazed with claims that the "left" is spinning tales of a "right-wing conspiracy." I have yet to read any such tales. But rightly pointing out that hate-speech leads to hate-crimes is not pointing out a conspiracy nor in any way suggesting that anyone conspired to have someone murdered. An ignorant person like Michelle Bachmann is just that, ignorant. She is also unethical. When used to frighten the dim-witted, the combination of ignorance and dirty political ploys can and does lead to acts of violence. No one is saying that Bachmann murdered this guy - or at least I am not saying that. But she has been inciting hate and rabid paranoia of the 2010 Census and should this prove to be a political killing, then I think it is also fair to ask what a responsible reaction might be to a public official using fear and hate to misinform and frighten the public.
But the right-wing does not get it. Let me take you on a tour of the glue-sniffing community:
Not that it would matter to the jump-to-anything-bad-that-happens-is-a-rightwing-conspiracy, but it's a fact. Clay County is solid Republican
I am curious, what is this conspiracy he is claiming that the left hyping? Is someone saying that a bunch of glue-sniffers got together with Michelle Bachmann and hired someone to kill Sparkman? Because I have yet to read any such thing. But he does figure out that Sparkman was a Republican - how clever. I had not bothered to look into that. Why? Because I doubt very much that the person (s) who murdered him checked his voter registration to see what party he was with. But if you need to sniff glue to come up with with this argument, go for it.
The guy who runs this blog, Donald Douglas, is an ultra-nationalist, openly racist professor of political science. Although he is very proud not to be an anti-Semite (good for your Donald!). That should put your mind at ease that there are actually ethical people teaching our students. But he is claiming that I have said that the "right-wing" killed Sparkman. Really? And what does he cite from my blog as evidence that I have made such an extreme statement? He cites exactly what I posted at the top of this blog, namely:
"And I think that it is also fair to question the role Rep. Michelle Bachmann (the psychotic, drooling, knuckle-dragger, ill-informed conspiracy theorist, birther and hater masquerading as a member of Congress) jihad against the Census Bureau had something to do with it."
And where in that paragraph do you see anything about the right-wing killing Sparkman? But I will repeat again, it is entirely fair to ask how hate-speech is related to hate-crimes. This is called logic, which they apparently no longer teach political science professors.
But my favorite response is of course from rabid racist, and queen glue-sniffer Michelle Shiksa Malkin. Here is what she writes:
No matter. A speculative rumor spread by the Associated Press that Sparkman may have been targeted because of his Census job — coupled with an unsubstantiated claim that “fed” was “scrawled” on his chest — was enough “evidence” for the nutroots to convict every outspoken conservative activist and advocate for limited government of a murder that has yet to be determined a murder.
Really? Interesting. Not that her argument has merit, it does not. But that she actually is now calling hate-speech "activism." It is not that she does not grasp that words have meaning and certain types of speech can be dangerous and does in fact have consequences (trying publicly stating that you want the POTUS dead and see what happens). She gets this actually.
When the anti-Semite James von Brunn attacked the Holocaust museum, she understood via his writing that his words had meaning and his actions were a product of hate. So she understands the relationship of hate-speech to hate-crimes. And she is the first to demand that we attack Iran because their anti-Semitic leader is a Holocaust denier. Strange, she is not even Jewish. But I digress. The point is she is willing to sign up our nation to go to war with another nation because their leader uses hate-speech and she fears the consequences of that hate-speech. Yet she dismisses as mere "activism"the same type of hate-speech that she and her ilk spew.
The really disturbing thing here is that political opportunism feels no responsibility to truth or the public good. Malkin calls racism activism, calls people who peddle Obama-concentration-camp conspiracy theories "outspoken conservatives," and yet has no problem calling people who share her hate (although the targets are different) nothing short of anti-Semites and terrorists. She is the worst kind of opportunist because she does not care at all to learn from her own examples.
For those of you who live on planet earth, don't just take my word for any of this. No, let Bachmann, Beck, and their ilk tell you themselves:
