Physician, Heal Thyself
Over at American Street I have a post that deals with Rush Limbaugh's claim that the left is full of rage, as manifested by the fact that the NY Times printed four letters from readers who didn't much appreciate Laura Bush's comedy act.
And courtesy of Powerline Blog and the blogger formerly known as Big Trunk, I learned that the liberals are dangerously close to murder, as shown by the fact that a student asked Ann an impolite question during the A&A portion of one of her speeches. Ex-Big Trunk makes fun of the University of St. Thomas administrator who asked the College Republican who introduced Coulter to meet with some of the students who felt that Ann's talk was mean-spirited and disrespectful (hard to believe that somebody would think that, I know). He then goes on to say:
In Texas the lunatic left's Coulter hysteria reached some kind of a fever pitch last night with the disruption of Coulter's speech by the vulgar fantasies of one Ajaj Raj.
Um, ex-Big Trunk, the "disruption" wasn't a vulgar fantasy so much as it was a question about what consensual sexual acts Ann thinks should lead to a loss of one's civil rights. I mean, if sodomy is wrong, then it's wrong, and couples who practice oral or anal sex shouldn't be allowed to get married, right?
His feelings too were undoubtedly in a state of disrepair as a result of his subjection to the unfettered speech of the unsettling Ms. Coulter.
"Unsettling." "Unsettled." "Deranged," "Psycho," Any of them will work as an adjective for Ms. Coulter.
Fortunately, we have a doctor in the house and on the case. The estimable Perry Branson, M.D. is the proprietor of ShrinkWrapped. He observes the pattern at work in "Dangerous portents."
Well, let's see what Mr. Branson, M.D., psychoanalyst, and LittleGreen Footballs fan, has to say about the matter:
There is an ongoing, dangerous escalation of rhetoric taking place in our nation. It is reminiscent of the tone that existed in the anti-war precincts in the late 1960's. [...] The left won the war over Vietnam, won the control of the government (with the Democrats and the liberal agenda an attenuated form of leftism) and the right went to work honing their philosophy and message.The United States retreated from large scale military interventions, and any terrorism that occurred, tended to come from the right.
Yes, after the '60s the only terrorism was from the right, and we liked it that way! And that's why it's so alarming that now there is rhetoric indicating to trained psychiatrists that we might be going from harmless Timothy McVeigh-style antics back to Weathermen-style violence.
Once again, we seem to be treading into dangerous territory. Just as back in the 60's, the MSM, Walter Cronkite, the New York Times, various pundits, gave intellectual cover to the worst excesses of rhetoric and ultimately to violence, the rhetoric is ratcheting upwards into dangerous territory. Central figures in the MSM, and in the Democratic party, are making charges that legitimize violence. If Bush lied (a meme that seems to never be far from the surface of the NY Times), if the Republicans "stole" a second consecutive election, if our soldiers, just as charged n Vietnam, are committing atrocities sanctioned by their superiors, logic dictates that some on the extreme left will take this as fact (and, some go much further into more complicated paranoid delusions) and take the step into violence. Thus far we have been treated to various conservatives being pelted with food when they have appeared on campuses. It will almost certainly escalate from here.
First, Horowitz, Kristol, and Coulter weren't pied (and Buchanon wasn't salad dressinged) because the NY Times said that Bush lied, but because their pelters thought the pundits were worthy targets because of stuff they themselves said.
Second, claiming that there's bound to be an escalation from pies to violence seems a little off-base to me. Was there any escalation following the pieings of Bill Gates, G. Gordon Liddy, Milton Friedman, or Anita Bryant?
And third, I have to wonder about the mental stability of somebody who blames Walter Cronkite for the Weathermen and the Black Panthers -- logic dictates that this kind of faulty thinking could be the precursor to paranoid delusions and full-blown psychosis.
Dr. Branson goes on to quote John McCandlish Phillips' column about the unkind things people like Maureen Down and Frank Rich wrote about evangelical Christians. He then says:
This is not the only place where the rhetorical excesses are reaching alarming proportions. Anne Coulter, a conservative entertainer, who uses a rapier wit, liberal doses of sarcasm to skewer her enemies on the ideological spectrum, not only received free food from the protesting leftists who come to her speeches to make sure no one can be contaminated by them, but accuse her of the intolerance and intimidation they themselves are using (another prominent feature of many of the protesters on the left in the good old days of 1969.)
Here are a few examples of Ann's rapier wit from her NY Observer interview from a few months back :
"I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
"Well, he [Bill Clinton] was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten."
"During the gay-marriage debate, these black ministers would come on TV and say things no white conservative would say. ‘Sodomy? You’re going to burn in hell for that!’ And I realized to my delight that if we can get blacks to be conservatives, we have an entire race of Ann Coulters."
"Oh, it [Christmas in New York] was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘Fuck you!’
Do you think that that's maybe where Ajaj Raj learned the "f"-word?
And of course, you already are familiar with Ann's quip about the need to execute John Walker Lind and physically intimidate liberals so they won't become outright traitors; her remark about her only regret about Timothy McVeigh being that he didn't go into the NY Times building; her bit about how Max Cleland was no hero because he dropped a grenade on himself while partying with his friends; and the line where she indicated that the tenets of Islam are "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed".
And here's her position on escalation: if a liberal throws a pie at you, kill him:
"I was physically attacked this year. I hear MoveOn.org has a bounty for anyone who throws a pie in my face. Neither of those guys hit me. I think one is still in prison. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. One guy with a broken shoulder and one with a broken nose. And that was when I was traveling totally unprotected. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."
But anyway, back to Dr. Branson's claim that "rhetorical excesses are reaching alarming proportions" (you know, by the people who accuse Ann of intolerance).
When your enemies are evil, dangerous fascists who are dedicated to destroying your country, your civil rights, and enslaving and/or killing various innocents, it becomes incumbent on right minded people to act to prevent further horrors. This is the logic of the left, aided and abetted by large parts of the MSM, Academia, and the Democratic Party. While they will accuse the Republicans and Bush of doing exactly what I just described, their logic fails when it can not encompass 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq elections, 3/11, the Cedar revolution, and so much more,
I guess in Dr. Branson's world, the left can't logically posit a situation where, say, innocent Iraqi civilians are being killed AND there were also elections in Iraq. Or, where some provisions of the Patriot Act infringe on civil rights AND al Qaedi terrorists flew planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. This attributing your own black/white, right/wrong thinking on your "enemies" seems to be a sign of some disorder covered in DSM IV -- maybe Dr. Branson could look it up and see which one.
... but much of the left is beyond the touch of reason; will violence follow?
I don't know. The liberals described by Dr. Branson may be poised to escalate their activies from pieing to cupcaking, and then tarting -- but I don't see domestic terrorism and murder being the eventual results.
But just for fun, let's look at a few of the comments left by conservatives in response to Dr. Branson's post -- these remarks can give us an example of the kind of decorum, civility, and mental health we liberals should be striving for:
A wave of domestic terrorism - aimed at Christian evangelicals and devout Catholics in particular - is only a matter of time. Posted by J.
Yup. It's only a matter of time before the persecution of people of faith results in actual Christian martrydom -- all because of Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd's snippy columns.
Those on the left who're calling for a new civil war may want to remember which side it is that has most of the guns & already knows how to use them properly. They should also realize that the folks they spit on & call baby-killers have assault rifles & worse, and aren't likely to look too kindly on them no matter what KOS says about the military being opposed to the war. Posted by C.
Yes, those on the left calling for a new civil war should remember this -- of course they should. Put down the guns, and we can talk about how you keep seeing conservatives with assault rifles being spat upon and called "baby killers" (Psst, is there a psychotherapist in the house?)
Communist sleeper cells are being deployed. The Manchurian Candidate (John McCain) is doing his best to stiffle free speech. The party-of-death is doing its last dance before dying.
Cain where is your brother Abel? In Iraq but will soon return. Cain tried but could not kill him. Posted by H.
Okay, now I'm really getting scared.
Anyway, here's a letter Dr. Branson wrote to the WSJ's "Best of the Web" last year. It explains a little bit about his descent into wingnuttery:
I am a 52-year-old New Yorker who has never missed voting in a major election. I have never voted for a Republican and voted for Gore in 2000. I am an agnostic, but nonetheless, after 9/11, I thank God that Bush won. My wife has never voted for a Republican either. We live in the liberal state of New York, with roots in the liberal elite. I am a psychiatrist who read the New York Times every day until I canceled my subscription one year ago. The fact-checking and real reporting by parts of the blogosphere were instrumental in helping me make the break;
Uh oh. Another weak mind led astray by InstaPundit.
the accretion of distortions that the liberal media consider "news" finally tipped me after Jayson Blair, but I was heading in that direction for several years in any event.
Yeah, it probably all started when the Times wouldn't publish his letters to the editor.
I might add that I find many people who tell me they agree with me on this, though they tend to whisper it since deviating from the liberal, mainstream-media party line is dangerous around here. I have actually heard from one patient, a psychologist herself, that her friends tell her they could never see a therapist who is a Republican.
Well, to be fair, they probably didn't want to hurt Dr. Branson's patient's feelings by telling her it was just Branson they objected to.
Personally, I am hoping for a landslide Republican victory, since I think it is the only thing that can save the Democratic Party from its lunatic fringe (just as the Goldwater debacle ultimately saved the Republican Party). When and if the Dems grow up and refind "reason," I will reconsider voting for them.
And Doc, if you ever get some help for your various mental health isues and refind "reason," we will reconsider our plan to make you attend an Ann Coulter speech so you can see those "worst excesses of rhetoric" in person.
9:18:44 AM 
|
