It should go without saying that political opinions can be very passionate. It really is the nature of the beast. It is not uncommon for people on different sides of the political aisle to disparage those who disagree with them. This is as true for conservatives as it is for liberals, right as much as left, and proletarian as well as bourgeois.
In the olden days, snide references tended to be made under the breath, in back rooms or among confidants who shared a particular political viewpoint. Subject to the dawn of the radio and television era, sometimes a stray microphone picked up a comment not meant for public consumption and there might be hell to pay for the individual uttering the not-so-nice-or-proper aside.
Now, with the advent of the internet, off-handed remarks quickly can go viral and, once made public, it can be next too impossible to take back the poorly worded missive. An immortal record is created that will live on long after the offender has disappeared over the final horizon.
One medium that seems to get public figures in trouble again and again is the tweet. Though limited to a meager 140 characters, it is amazing how these short and often emotional abbreviated statements can create a firestorm almost instantaneously. The individual may quickly regret the emotional outburst they just shot into virtual world, but by then, it almost always is far too late. Somebody, somewhere has taken a snapshot of the offending comment and the brouhaha is on.
Such an occurrence took place this past weekend.
Even more troubling is that Cox sounds like he endorses the same strategy being currently employed in Libya, Bahrain and other Middle Eastern nations who are experiencing massive civil unrest. It would be bad enough if Cox was some yahoo out in the boondocks spouting off anonymously, but, when you consider is current position, such statements are entirely irresponsible.
The worst part about his tweet is that it has the potential to provide a modicum of legitimization to the idea that it might be patriotic for someone with violent mental health issues to go down to the Wisconsin state capitol to carry out the use of "live ammunition" on peaceful protesters. While, after the shootings in Tucson, Sara Palin received a healthy dose of criticism for her use of cross hairs over select congressional district, Cox's declaration is ten times more direct and blatant.
It will be interesting to see how (or if) Cox tries to backpedal from his inflammatory tweet. It will also be interesting to see if he keeps his day job serving the citizens of Indiana.
UPDATE: Cox lost his job and rather quickly too.
In the olden days, snide references tended to be made under the breath, in back rooms or among confidants who shared a particular political viewpoint. Subject to the dawn of the radio and television era, sometimes a stray microphone picked up a comment not meant for public consumption and there might be hell to pay for the individual uttering the not-so-nice-or-proper aside.
Now, with the advent of the internet, off-handed remarks quickly can go viral and, once made public, it can be next too impossible to take back the poorly worded missive. An immortal record is created that will live on long after the offender has disappeared over the final horizon.
One medium that seems to get public figures in trouble again and again is the tweet. Though limited to a meager 140 characters, it is amazing how these short and often emotional abbreviated statements can create a firestorm almost instantaneously. The individual may quickly regret the emotional outburst they just shot into virtual world, but by then, it almost always is far too late. Somebody, somewhere has taken a snapshot of the offending comment and the brouhaha is on.
Such an occurrence took place this past weekend.
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building — something that didn't end up happening — one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."Of course, a tweet of this nature from a deputy attorney general is problematic. The attorney general and his or her deputies of each state are the top law enforcement officers and lawyers for the government. So, this statement by Jeff Cox amounts to an endorsement of using deadly force on people exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly.
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana...
Even more troubling is that Cox sounds like he endorses the same strategy being currently employed in Libya, Bahrain and other Middle Eastern nations who are experiencing massive civil unrest. It would be bad enough if Cox was some yahoo out in the boondocks spouting off anonymously, but, when you consider is current position, such statements are entirely irresponsible.
The worst part about his tweet is that it has the potential to provide a modicum of legitimization to the idea that it might be patriotic for someone with violent mental health issues to go down to the Wisconsin state capitol to carry out the use of "live ammunition" on peaceful protesters. While, after the shootings in Tucson, Sara Palin received a healthy dose of criticism for her use of cross hairs over select congressional district, Cox's declaration is ten times more direct and blatant.
It will be interesting to see how (or if) Cox tries to backpedal from his inflammatory tweet. It will also be interesting to see if he keeps his day job serving the citizens of Indiana.
UPDATE: Cox lost his job and rather quickly too.
Wow. I hope the guy is fired immediately, or forced to resign, or whatever. That's some shit.
ReplyDelete