I’ll go where Ted Nugent just led. Zero violence!

ted-nugent-80650_960_720I just heard the most amazing interview, the Curtis & Eboni show at 77WABC:  Ted Nugent Accepts Responsibility; Says Tone Down Rhetoric

It is exactly what it sounds like. There’s a couple of moments toward the end of the twelve-ish minutes where it almost sounds like he’s tempering his statement a little, but I think if you listen for yourself and not rely on anything taken out of context later, you’ll hear a clear admission of going too far in the past and a clarion call to take it down a notch, everybody.

Mr. Nugent himself apparently is taking his lead from both his wife and, if I gathered correctly from the context, Eboni herself. This is big. Anyone who has suffered my stylings in the past knows I’m slow to give credit and quick to find fault, especially when I think evil is afoot, so I want to be clear. We’ve all (well, most of us, I hope) been taught from childhood that it takes a big person to admit to and right a wrong.

If Ted Nugent can be big enough to both stand firm in principle and at the same time take responsibility for the past wrong of apparently supporting political violence, I can get behind that. I don’t need to agree with his politics. I can get behind THAT. And if he believes it’s possible to maintain our strong disagreements, even passionately and with strong language, I can get behind THAT. And if he goes so far as to be clearly opposed to violence, full stop, and especially political violence, I can get behind THAT.

Okay, I’ll gloat a tiny bit, but I’m a nobody and he’s famous. I was ahead by a wee bit.

So this is my promise to you. Whatever my position on an issue, and whatever yours, I won’t wish you dead. I won’t wish you beaten. I will respect that we differ, even if I fail to respect the reasons. And I’ll be as civil as Ted Nugent going forward.



Categories: Uncategorized

3 replies »

  1. Well, okay.

    a) I’m glad to hear it. The first step is to stop doing evil.

    b) I don’t really have much truck with American/Christian notions of forgiveness, so the idea that I’d ever “forgive” him is moot.

    c) Now, let me speculate cynically for a second. As I hinted at yesterday, I can’t help noticing that nobody on the right was calling for toning down dick before Scalise got shot, which coincidentally came a few days after I mused that the pro-shoot-the-hippie faction on the right could do with a tad more fear in their lives. So we get a mentally ill guy on the left, for a change, and all of a sudden fucking EVERYBODY in the GOP, from Ryan to Nugent to other pols to regular people are like WHOA, WHOA, WHOA – peace, love and understanding, okay?

    Shooting people you disagree with is a bad thing. But if you’re me, you can’t help being suspicious about the timing.

    In any event, hopefully what these former stochastic terrorists are saying will register with their audiences and hopefully we can have fewer shootings in the future (zero would be a nice target number).

  2. To be clear, my agreement is to tone down my rhetoric. If I’m led there in error, arriving there isn’t wrong. And there’s plenty of room to disagree vociferously. I intend to keep on doing that.

    The timing is absolutely telling, I think. It’s a repeat of a tired old pattern. Are you a so-called conservative politician with an established anti-gay policy platform? How about after someone close to you comes out? Ah, now there’s some empathy. Funny how that works, time and time again, eh?

    And some other things will probably never change as long as there are cynical profiteers making bank on character failings. Glenn Beck, still admired by too many, tolerates some of the very worst outright sacrilege on his platforms that it is just astounding. Mega-pastors like Franklin Graham are even worse. And it just strengthens the moral opposition because most of these people (the audience, I mean) actually do believe they’re on the side of good, never mind how often the platitudes getting handed to them run entirely counter to Gospel.

    I wouldn’t get optimistic yet. There’s a right-wing retribution nutter in the wings. Watch the hatespew coming from those quarters.

  3. I continue to think about this. Question: do you believe he’d be “toning down the rhetoric” if Clinton had won?

    If not, what implications does that have for how we receive his comments?

    Obviously doing so remains a good thing, period. But a good faith act and a cynical, manipulative one aren’t the same and shouldn’t be treated as such, right?