Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[Medusa]

I've been reading for the last couple of days about the tragic shooting in Arizona involving Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Federal Judge John Roll, and 7 others.

Across the web, I am seeing lots of commentary about how the political climate in Arizona probably had a lot to do with this shooting, even if nothing more than timing. I have also read several articles replaying Sarah Palin's "SarahPAC" website "crosshairs" and "bullseye" symbol mapping which "targeted" Rep Giffords' district.

I'd like to know what folks think about the responsibility behind the shooting. Do you think that today's political climate is ripe for violence? Do you think that the vitriol created by the SarahPac map, certain political propaganda, etc. is a form of hate speech? Do you think that our first amendment rights mean that we get to incite violence even if it's in innuendo?

Thoughts?

[katsarecool]

I blame the irresponsible behavior of Palin, Beck, Engle and others like them for their words and actions. Not all the blame but the majority. Yes the guys has serious mental problems and can be held responsible for some of it. But people who are not in control of the facilties are easily influenced.

That being said, I still hold freedom of speech holy and sacred to our democracy.

Palin and others like her should be shunned. Other people need to wake up, educate themselves and not support her and the others by buying their books, watching their tv shows, etc. I blame the complacency of many Americans as well.

I know I saw Palin's Crosshairs months ago, spoke up but failed to get riled up and do something more. Something as simple as reporting her page on FB and encouraging others to do the same. Or contacting tv stations to protest the likes of Glen Beck and others. So I feel some sense of responsibility as well.

[Linus]

Do you think that today's political climate is ripe for violence? Do you think that the vitriol created by the SarahPac map, certain political propaganda, etc. is a form of hate speech? Do you think that our first amendment rights mean that we get to incite violence even if it's in innuendo?

I think that the climate is ripe for this kind of thing and I don't think that the 1st Amendment should allow. The USSC (US Supreme Court), IIRC (1919, Schneck vs US), has stated that falsely yelling "fire" in a theater isn't necessarily free speech. To that end, it suggests that we must be aware of the implications of our actions and the reactions that may happen as a result. It is one of the things that I miss in Canada and that is laws that doesn't allow for the promotion of hatred that could lead to violence (this is also tied with Holocaust denying being illegal).

Palin's target map isn't a first. The Democrats did something similar during the Bush era (I think this is from 2004 but could be wrong):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S79mayyn7WI/AAAAAAAAG4I/LH23p2rtEzM/s400/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

The young man who did fire the weapon in Arizona is known for ties to an anti-Semitic, anti-immigration organization. I would suspect that a lot of why he did what he did was over immigration since the Judge who died was a huge proponent of immigrant rights and I believe Gifford is as well.

Regardless, both the Democrats, Republicans and Tea Party types are doing their darnedest to create a truly polarized nation. The rhetoric has been ratcheted up to such a frenzied level I'm surprised it took this long for this kind of situation to happen. Hopefully, this might cause things to settle or lessen but I have my doubts.

[Corkey]

I have so many thoughts on this and I am conflicted. Yes, I do believe that the vitriol has something to do with this shooting. I also believe he alone is to blame for actually pulling the trigger 18 times.
I do think he was sane enough when he did this horrible crime, he planed it out and perhaps wanted to die by cop, which didn't happen.
I do think the right wing fundies have spewed enough hate to go around for years, and he may have been sebcpiptible to it, that doesn't mean that he is mentally ill. I don't have the degree to assign that to him.
I think the laws in AZ need to catch up to the rest of the country for carry permits and for legal ownership of weapons. The victims and families are devastated and this needs to be examined fully. I may have more latter, it's just so mind blowing that this happened, but I can't say it was unexpected from all the poison Palin et al have spewed. I do hold them accountable for their rhetoric, incite to murder is a felony, and I hope it can be proved in a court of law.

[Soon]

Thank you for starting this thread, Medusa!

[Ebon]

People are always responsible for their own actions. That being said I know that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and a few other folks have said and done things that make me feel like choking a motherfucker but I don't because I'm sane.

I do think that the political climate is ripe for insane people to think it's ok to take another persons life.

[princessbelle]

People are always responsible for their own actions. That being said I know that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and a few other folks have said and done things that make me feel like choking a motherfucker but I don't because I'm sane.

I do think that the political climate is ripe for insane people to think it's ok to take another persons life.

I agree with this and the key is insane...even in theory. Meaning their beliefs no matter how far off track can lead to mental instability and insanity as governed by our morals and laws. Of course to them, they are the only ones that are sane.

It's always happened. People have taken it on themselves to be the "ones to save the world" or to take out those in power that they feel are overstepping ever since we have been a Country.

It won't ever stop.

And so on and so on.....

[Rockinonahigh]

Ok,I will put my thoughts on this subject out.
I,for one think that over the years way to much hate and violence has been spoken by to many people.Our elected oficials have become more trashy mouth than a street gutter.Most of the far right has done all it could to beef up the climate over the last years,especally since Obama has taken office,hey the guy had a lot of stuff to repair after the bush folks had the white house for all those years...no easy road for shure...I mean he has has to taken three steps forward and slide back 1 1/2 of them ,but he is doing some good things.Then came the mud slinging,the hate mongers,then Palins target advertising and othershe is responsable for as well as others like her.Once its got started it just kept going couse it didnt ke much fuel to keep it going..think tea party express with there raceist statements ect going one about the rich folks slaming the folks who dont have as much.I herd someone say if the less fourtunate wanted to have more things,they should get a friggin job,get off wellfare so the gov would have more $$..whilethe gove is printing bills out like a madhatter.In reality many want to work..they dont want to be on a gov ticket any where.Where are the jobs we need to help folks who want to work..overseas where the labor is cheap is where the jobs are.PPl are loseing there homes with out jobs..ppl are just mad ,pissed off and frustrated over how it all is.I herd there will be lots of jobs before long,how long?This year,next year.This kid that is a nut case from what I hear...whay wasnt he geting help or an eye kept on him for his own safty and everyone else cause its not like he wasnt known for how he felt about doing what he did or something like it at some point.

[Blade]

Totally agree with Ebon

[pajama]

Democrats say it about Republicans, Republicans about Democrats, it just depends on who's in office at the moment. Sarah Palin no more caused these deaths, than Jody Foster caused Reagan's shooting or Marilyn Manson caused the shootings at the high school, than playing Dungeons and Dragons caused whatever else. And guns don't kill people...idiots and nut-jobs wielding those guns kill people. IMHO

I think the political/religious climate is escalating, as our whole society is. We care less about each other, respect each other less, etc. So as a species, humans have become more violent. Again IMHO.

A

[Just_G]

We see other countries where there is so much violence between 2 groups that are on opposing sides of what is going on in that country, and it makes me wonder what this country will be like years from now when people think the easiest way to handle a situation or to silence a politician is with violence. (and I realize that this has been going on since the beginning of time; i.e. Lincoln, Dr. ML King, Kennedy, etc.) It's barbaric. The tea party folks scare the shit out of me....and a lot of those followers that want to "take this country back".

I see all these left wing nuts that stretch the truth and start rumors and fill people's heads with such bullshit....and people BELIEVE that shit!! My step mom thinks that Rush and Beck walk on freakin' water; and I look at her and think "what kind of idiot are you?" Some of the things that come out of her mouth make my jaw hit the ground.

So now all of these politicians are going to need security....I guess that is one way to help the unemployment rate; right? :blink:

[Enchantress]

Ultimately, we're all responsible for our own actions, violent or not.

However, it is essential that those with powerful sway, be cognizant of what they say, do and place out in the world.

Unfortunately, there are those who are mentally unstable or dangerously extreme (one in the same?) who will take those bits of information and go to an irrational and sometimes deadly place.

But we must also be aware that we live in a country that was built on free speech. If we attempt to control this, we are infringing on rights. But make no mistake, those who preach ignorant, biased and hateful rhetoric should most definitely be held morally accountable.

[Kobi]

This is another of those tricky situations for me and my thoughts are all over the place trying to write something coherent.

For me to say something violent occurred because of a political climate or political rhetoric seems self serving and self indulgent. This is a country based on diversity, free speech, and revolution. It is a country of innovations, many of which would not have come to fruition if diversity and differences in thinking were not allowed. It is a country based on differences of thought and beliefs which for the most part find ways to live in some degree of harmony.

It is also a country in flux and economic turmoil. Change, I think, is coming and the process may not be pleasant. We seem to need new definitions of who we are, where we are going, and how we are going to get there as a country.

I can't honesty say the rhetoric of Sarah Palin led this man to a shooting spree anymore than I can say Ghandi and his message of peace inspired someone to kill him.

It's not that simple or logical a process. People do weird things for bizarre reasons. We might feel more comfortable if we can attribute behavior to this or that so our world seems controllable. But, people are complex beings when they are well, they are more complex when they are not well.

I truly believe we are responsible for our own actions. And, as a society, we have become accustomed to looking for excuses for behavior so as to absolve ourselves of responsibility for things we do. I have a real hard time with blaming others for the choices we individually make.

[rainintothesea]

As loathsome as I find Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, I hesitate to assign them any more power and responsibility than they already so ineptly wield. The degree of ugliness of political rhetoric may ebb and flow, but it's politics. It has always been and is likely to remain ugly.

From where I stand, the best weapons we have against bad ideas are good ideas, better ideas. The best response to speech with which we disagree is MORE speech, not less… never less. If someone with repugnant ideas is spewing them all over the airwaves or from a rally stage, the way to take the power from those people is not to stand by silently, ignoring them, and hoping they go away… and it's definitely not to turn them into a political martyr by trying to silence them so they suddenly have the moral high ground. The way to take their power is by standing up and saying no, I don't agree with that, I won't support it or you and now I'm going to tell everyone else why. It's by challenging them to defend those ideas, to show their work, to produce the evidence, the data to back up the claims they make.

This discussion, on a national level, should be reframed to focus on the actual issues. If a political stance got Gifford shot (immigration?), then it's the issue about which we should be talking, not some old campaign graphic from one of Palin's puppeteers.

Actual incitement to violence is one thing. If someone is saying hey, go kill this list of my political enemies, that's a problem. But saying that because some graphic designer used crosshairs to "target" key seats in a political race that Sarah Palin wants a U.S. Representative dead is really disingenuous and steals focus from the actual important issues here. Bad taste? Ill-advised? Maybe. Criminal? Hardly.

[Gayla]

While I'd like to say that I'm surprised this happened, I think on some level I've kind of been waiting for it.

As much as we may be able to see past the bullshit that is news-as-entertainment, there are a great many people in this country that believe every word of it. I do think that, while we don't know yet about Tuscon, it is responsible for much of the violence around political issues. It may not be encouraging it, but they damn sure aren't discouraging it which I think is more important.

Yes, the ultra conservative, militia kind of groups have been around forever but it's only been recently that attitude has become something other than the fringe. I mean, really, when did it become ok to attack someone and stomp on their head because they might make your political leader of choice look silly? It's that type of mentality that I think is growing and I blame the "reload" rhetoric.

I can't stop thinking about that little girl. I hope that somewhere between the bookends that started and ended it, her very short life was charmed.

[dreadgeek]

Before I say where I think we are, I want to ask you to do a little thought experiment with me.

You are a German living in Berlin in 1937. The war has not started yet. Austria hasn't been given to Germany and neither has Czechoslovakia. Kristallnacht is still in the future. "All" that has happened is that a man named Hitler has risen to power. He and his party have passed laws that while they do not directly harm *you*, clearly harm others. He sounds like a dictator. He is violating treaties and rearming the nation in violation of the Versailles treaty. He talks of peace and prepares for war. He has set himself up as the supreme law of the land, answerable to no one. The Nuremberg laws making the Jews estranged to the German law and economy are in effect but there are no death camps yet. There are concentration camps, but 'political prisoners' are being sent there.

To make this more interesting, you are a member of the German Army. Someone has come to you and proposed overthrowing the Nazi regime. You certainly have the means to do something about this tyrannical madman. What do you do? To make it even more interesting, as you sit at home that night pondering what move to make a hole opens up in the space-time continuum and a thick black book falls through entitled "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". You read it and learn what Hitler is going to put your nation and the world through. NOW what do you do?

I ask this question NOT because I think that America is Germany under the Nazi regime. I didn't think it was under Bush the Younger and I certainly don't think it under the Obama administration. Rather, I invoke it because who *hasn't* had the thought "Hitler was so obviously bad, why didn't anyone do something about it?" It is because of that thought that I think that the tendency to cavalierly compare presidents with whom we disagree with as Hitler or Stalin is inherently dangerous. We should use that language if it is necessary but only if it is necessary. Saying that a POTUS is like Hitler or Stalin or doing anything remotely akin to their actions other than breathing, should be something we approach--if at all--slowly, carefully and after much deliberation.

Is Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or the Tea Party or MoveOn or David Brock or Barack Obama responsible for the actions of this man? No, not in any ordinary since of the term 'responsible' and certainly not in any legal sense. Is the language that Palin, Limbaugh and Beck or the Tea Partiers using in describing the current administration dangerous? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Unless, of course, you actually believe that the Obama administration has 'FEMA camps' set up to put political conservatives in. If you actually believe that then it is incumbent upon you to present the evidence for that belief. If that evidence is not forthcoming then it is incumbent upon the rest of us to not take you seriously unless and until you have solid evidence.

Sarah Palin should stop talking about 'death panels' that will order your grandmother to be put to death. Glenn Beck should stop making comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Rush Limbaugh should stop saying that liberals want the terrorists to win or are on the side of Al Qaeda. The media, perhaps, should start doing their jobs with a little more gusto and mature behavior. If a politician states that his opponent voted in favor of providing Viagra to pedophiles (as was stated by several candidates during the 2010 midterms) then the media should do due diligence, look at the Congressional record, and if it turns out to be a lie call it out as a lie. Don't call it a 'misunderstanding'. The next politician who claims that the Obama administration "gave GM to the unions" should quite simply have their political career end right then and there.

Yes, people are responsible for their actions. However, words--the speaking and printing of them, at least--are actions. Like all other actions, they have consequences. If you are a person of national stature and you claim that the opposing side is a domestic terrorist, you should NOT be at all surprised if some unhinged person takes you at your word and tries to be the hero of the action movie called 'America' and take out the 'domestic enemy'. If you are a person of national stature and you make statements about 'Second Amendment remedies' or 'don't retreat, reload' you should not be at all surprised when someone takes you seriously. This is not just about conservatives or liberals--I winced (and would argue) when liberals claimed that Bush the Younger was like Hitler.

Perhaps if we didn't have a nation awash in guns we could hurl those kinds of insults at one another all day long. It's very hard to kill 6 people in a matter of a minute or two with a broadsword. However, we are a nation absolutely awash in guns and with a persistent mythology of the hero with a big gun, quick on the draw and able to snapshot the wings off a mosquito at 50 yards. If I thought we were a mature country, I would suggest that we make a choice between being armed to the teeth or calling our political opponents everything but some mother's child. However, I don't think we are capable of making that choice.

Cheers
Aj

[Novelafemme]

"We know that silence equals consent when atrocities are committed against innocent men, women and children. We know that indifference equals complicity when bigotry, hatred and intolerance are allowed to take root. And we know that education and hope are the most effective ways to combat ignorance and despair." Gabrielle Giffords

While I may not have any control over the person seeking out a gun via illegal methods, I do believe that stores/businesses that choose to sell firearms to the general public need to be held responsible for upholding each and every law set in place to protect the lives of the innocent. I live in a very gun-happy state where it is legal to walk around in public with a concealed weapon. Do I want stronger legislation around this right to keep and bear arms??? Hell, yes! Maybe if this business had actually run Mr. Loughner's profile through the system in an appropriate manner he would have turned up in the system as having a criminal record. Perhaps law enforcement could have been alerted and his internet rantings discovered. Maybe, just MAYBE this horrible tragedy could have been prevented!! But we will never know because on November 30, 2010 the laws were not abided by and Jared Loughner walked in and out of the store where he purchased an automatic firearm in less than 15 minutes. So, again...I not only ask for more stringent legislation when it comes to legally purchasing a firearm...I demand it!

[JustJo]

I have so many mixed (and horrible) feelings about this whole thing... I walked into my son's school this morning to deliver a forgotten homework assignment and found the children observing a moment of silence and reflection or prayer for those lost. For me, it's heartbreaking...not only what happened in AZ, but also that it's coloring the worldview of these young children.

Anyway...I think that what Palin and Beck and others are doing is despicable. I don't think it's criminal...and I don't think they can be blamed for what a single disturbed individual does. I do blame them for fostering an atmosphere of hatred, however.

From what I've read, this was a very disturbed young man. Friends and staff at his high school had grown increasingly concerned about his mental state. He had been kicked out of the community college he attended for causing multiple disturbances in the classroom and the library...and could not return to college until he had been cleared by a mental health professional who would vouch for the fact that he was not a danger to others. This had not happened.

In part, I blame the changes in our society that have eroded the services we provide to the mentally ill (as well as a plethora of vulnerable others). If we had a decent safety net of mental health care...maybe he would have been helped before now, and these deaths would not have happened.

[Nightshade]

While I think it's important to realize that extremist have been around forever, their methods of disseminating propaganda has changed dramatically.

Instead of radical newspapers, subversive flyers, whispered recruiting and basement meetings, these people have 24 hour podiums on multiple tv and radio stations.

That sort of bombardment is HIGHLY effective and I believe it has contributed to the volatile tone of politics today, and helps these psychos hone their hatred and justify their actions.

[Novelafemme]

YouTube - Mindless Menace of Violence

RFK's Mindless Menace of Violence Speech. Please listen to these powerful words.

[dreadgeek]

I want to make one other comment about the media reaction.

Imagine, if you will, the following details being different and ONLY these following details:

Case 1: "The alleged shooter, Faisal Al-Jawari, who went to a mosque in southwest Tucson..."

Case 2: The alleged shooter, Kwame Holmes, who attended the St. Andrews AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church....

Case 3: The alleged shooter, Javier Domingo, who was born in Guatemala...

In case 1, is there ANYONE reading this who doubts that we wouldn't be talking about terrorists and how whether or not we should trust Muslims?

In case 2, is there anyone who thinks we wouldn't be hearing someone like Tucker Carlson claiming that they wish someone had 'taken the shooter out' or that the hoped 'something happened' to him in jail or en route to trial next to a picture of the little girl who was killed?

In case 3, is there anyone who thinks we wouldn't be hearing about the dangers of immigrants and calls to close the border?

Yet, because of who this guy is he won't be called crazy nor will he be considered representative of some group. Instead, he's a lone wolf, a crazy man, 'one bad apple'.

Go back and look at the difference between the Fort Hood shooter (who happened to be brown skinned and with a non-European name) and this guy. Or look at the difference between the coverage of John Lee Malvo and this guy.

Not to derail the thread, but I think that the contrast is striking and there for all to see.

Cheers
Aj

[MsDemeanor]

Sarah Palin should stop talking about 'death panels' that will order your grandmother to be put to death. Glenn Beck should stop making comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Rush Limbaugh should stop saying that liberals want the terrorists to win or are on the side of Al Qaeda. The media, perhaps, should start doing their jobs with a little more gusto and mature behavior.
The Republican leadership should quit using incendiary language. Case in point: "HR 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" It's like five year olds taunting others on a playground. These people are supposed to be leaders.

[Corkey]

This pretty much sums it up for me, and I agree with him on all his points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[Novelafemme]

This pretty much sums it up for me, and I agree with him on all his points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Speaks volumes:

"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

[Novelafemme]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_8484c70e-f417-530c-be52-23423a32eaf7.html

[RockOn]

First off, I would like to thank Medusa for this topic.

Here is a link to a video from some time back, entitled "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs." In this video, Giffords specifically says "there are consequences ... "

YouTube - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs


Here is an additional link. It points to Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u

I find these videos of Loughner's extremely disturbing. I have concluded Loughner's just another unhappy, angry punk with mental issues and no regard for others and no conscience. He is angry and wants to do something - do something big. He decided to use Giffords as his target as a means of releasing his anger. Appears to me he possesses very complicated ideas regarding his self-assigned privileged special powers and importance.

This incident is really bothering me. I could write volumes of chapters on personal speculations about how "this may have caused that" ... etc. but I won't. Instead, here are my comments. Nuts have always existed. There is no way every one of them can be monitored and removed.

Prayers to the Good Spirit for the deceased and injured ... as well as all their loved ones and friends. I find it heartbreaking.

I'll never understand how anyone can be so mean.

Sidenote: Please overlook this post if someone has already posted these links. Most times, I do not read entire threads because it is entirely too time consuming. I won't give that much to online so I do miss a lot of key points. I even break the rules unknowingly of a particular topic because of this. Oh well ...

[dreadgeek]

Speaks volumes:

"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

Precisely. It is one thing entirely to say, for instance, that congressional Republicans and the national conservative movement, generally, have taken Machiavellian mendacity to new and artistic depths. It is quite another thing to say that liberals want to destroy America and that their every intent is to destroy America. If you say that Democrats want to tax and spend the money of hard-working (read white) Americans and give it to the undeserving (read not-white) then okay. It's not accurate, but that seems in bounds. If one is wont to say that Republicans want to engorge the coffers of the super-rich on the backs of the poor, alright. It may be simplistic, it may be inaccurate, but still within bounds.

Do I think that when Sarah Palin's star falls American political discourse will be the better for it? Yes. Do I think that when Glenn Beck's antics bring him sinking ratings American political culture will have improved incrementally? Yes. Do I think that Keith Olberman should, perhaps, go through the CBS archives and see how different his hero Edward R. Murrow comported himself while still speaking truth to power? Yes.

However, that's not wishing for there to be no conservatives or for Keith Olberman to go the way of the dodo. Whenever I am speaking with a conservative who looks at Palin and sees someone speaking to and for them, I ask how they would go about dealing with liberals and how they think America would be better off if there were no liberals. Most times, that brings them up short because I don't think a lot of conservatives realize just *how* eliminationist the rhetoric has become.

Cheers
Aj

[Gayla]

Just spent a couple of hours in the car and happened to catch one of my favorite local, liberal, commentator guys on the first part of his afternoon show. Normally he and I agree on most everything but in this situation we don't. He doesn't think that the rhetoric of the right has any influence in any way.

Not only do I disagree but I think the fact that the conservative media, Palin's camp and the many others that engage in this started making statements about the lack of connection within hours of the shooting is very telling. The Arizona candidate(can't remember his name) who had a campaign stop where he encouraged people to come shoot his assault rifle issued a statement saying they don't see a connection.

Also on the radio, replays of some of the interviews with the people who tackled the shooter. I hadn't heard that because I just been reading about this online and not watching TV. The woman who pulled the magazine out of his hand said, "I was laying there on the ground, waiting to get shot..." because the woman next to her already had been. To hear these people talk, gave a whole different perspective of this for me.

It very well could be that this is the sole doings of an unstable, pot smoking, loner who was influenced by nothing more than the ramblings in his own head. But I'm having a hard time believing that.

[Glenn]

Folks; The individual is sick yes...intellectually and socially unintelligent, but what folks are doing is precisely what the problem has been in the past with the labeling and finger pointing. I have heard this pitiful soul called a nut, loser, pot-smoker, demon worshiper, everything.. but most of all "just some nut." Many folks who are fine citizens of the world, not loners, non-users etc., become mentally ill whether our society does it, or heredity. In time, we will know more about this boi. Furthermore, I do not think he should receive the death penalty.

[Gemme]

I'd like to know what folks think about the responsibility behind the shooting. Do you think that today's political climate is ripe for violence? Do you think that the vitriol created by the SarahPac map, certain political propaganda, etc. is a form of hate speech? Do you think that our first amendment rights mean that we get to incite violence even if it's in innuendo?

Thoughts?

Democrats say it about Republicans, Republicans about Democrats, it just depends on who's in office at the moment. Sarah Palin no more caused these deaths, than Jody Foster caused Reagan's shooting or Marilyn Manson caused the shootings at the high school, than playing Dungeons and Dragons caused whatever else. And guns don't kill people...idiots and nut-jobs wielding those guns kill people. IMHO

I think the political/religious climate is escalating, as our whole society is. We care less about each other, respect each other less, etc. So as a species, humans have become more violent. Again IMHO.

A

Pajara pretty much summed up what I was thinking when I read Medusa's question. It's a bit eerie too, since the VERY first thought in my head was 'guns don't kill people...people kill people'. :blink:

I see the disconnect between people, the humanity, more and more on a daily basis. We're isolating ourselves with our MP3 players and iPods and laptops. We are talking more on the cellphone than to our neighbors. Children are growing up with little to no discipline or rules and with a highly elevated sense of entitlement.

Our society has swung far to the other side of the pendulum now. Before, it was a hard day and we worked hard and our folks had it hard. Now, it's all about being soft and weak and self-absorbed. Over time, we've wanted our kids to have a better life, but who declared hard work part of a life that wasn't better?

I see a connection between what was and what has been avoided and where we are now. I think those spewing violent words and inciteful speech should be held accountable. I think those who fell down on the job, so to speak, along the way should be held accountable.

But, in the end, no matter what you hear or what you think or what you saw, there's that moment the second before a finger pulls the trigger back just a hair more where it's just you and your conscious and the weight of your thoughts and mental actions (because you've played the scene in your head a thousand times already) and most of us, I'd like to think, would not do it. And do it. And do it. And do it. And do it. Over and over again. The final responsbility for one's actions fall squarely on the shoulders of the one who commited them.

[Gayla]

Apparently I should have put the part about "pot smoking, loner" in quotes. That, along with "unstable" are words that the media has been using to describe the person with the gun.

That was not just something I just made up and was not meant to be any type of value judgement I'm making about people who smoke pot, spend time alone or have mental health issues.

My judgey mcjudgerson moment - the shooter's fucking insane.

I don't think that people who smoke pot, spend time alone or have mental health issues are insane, homicidal terrorists.

/disclaimer

[Hack]

I don't think Sarah Palin's website or her rhetoric are specifically what drove this individual to do what he did. But things like that certainly don't help. Neither does Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

I've worked in politics for more than 20 years for legislators and a governor. In the last few years, especially, I've grown a pretty thick skin. I am a press spokesperson for a department of state government here in Michigan, which has been Ground Zero for the economic meltdown in the manufacturing sector. We have a lot of pissed off people here, simply put. I don't think a week goes by where I don't get a phone call that is threatening or kinda creepy. In fact, right now, I have a message stored in my voicemail awaiting investigation because some would perceive it as a death threat. I have a radio show host in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who routinely mentions by name law enforcement officers and other high-ranking officials who work in my department and says things like they should be "shot on sight" or "strung up in the tallest tree." I have one of my staff listen to a recording of his show each week and catalog the threats just in case something happens. We've tried to file a complaint with him, but he's apparently covered under "freedom of speech." Welcome to public service in the 21st Century.

You know, I hate to sound cynical, but we all know what will happen here. There will be a few weeks of discussion about how we have to have more civil discourse in politics, but by summertime, I predict, it will be back to business as usual. And certainly, as we approach the election season in 2012, with a Republican Party relishing the chance to knock Obama out of office, it will be ratcheted up even further.

We're all taught to speak up when we think something is wrong. Some of us do, and some folks don't. But then I think some people take the action too far. I also think we have lost the value of statesmanship in politics. It used to be that politicians would strive to be statesmen or stateswomen, but those folks sadly tend to be few and far between these days.

Jake

[weatherboi]

i knew you cared!!!!!


Apparently I should have put the part about "pot smoking, loner" in quotes. That, along with "unstable" are words that the media has been using to describe the person with the gun.

That was not just something I just made up and was not meant to be any type of value judgement I'm making about people who smoke pot, spend time alone or have mental health issues.

My judgey mcjudgerson moment - the shooter's fucking insane.

I don't think that people who smoke pot, spend time alone or have mental health issues are insane, homicidal terrorists.

/disclaimer

[Gayla]

i knew you cared!!!!!

I really don't get how my post turned into "all pot smokers are evil".

[afixer]

I do think that the political climate is ripe for insane people to think it's ok to take another persons life.


ftr...the political climate has been and always will be ripe for such actions.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_a ttempts_and_plots)
some of our forefathers came to this land to escape political tyrannies elsewhere.
that didn't work out so well for the native folks here.

I love my country but our government is flawed in that as a nation we take action and even have laws that would allow for the taking of any human life.
when I say this I mean we send our soldiers abroad to kill for our country and we have capital punishment on a federal level.
so how are we as a nation any different?
it's never okay to take someone's life.


.

[dreadgeek]

ftr...the political climate has been and always will be ripe for such actions.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_a ttempts_and_plots)
some of our forefathers came to this land to escape political tyrannies elsewhere.
that didn't work out so well for the native folks here.

[quote]
I love my country but our government is flawed in that as a nation we take action and even have laws that would allow for the taking of any human life.
when I say this I mean we send our soldiers abroad to kill for our country and we have capital punishment on a federal level.
so how are we as a nation any different?
it's never okay to take someone's life.


.

I'm curious about something. Do not other nations also send their soldiers to kill others? Can you name a nation that was a power in, say, 1900 that didn't send its armies forth at least once last century? Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Japan all sent their armies forth for the purpose of conquest or to maintain their empire or to comply with a treaty obligation. Yet, the only nation on that list with a death rate from violence even *remotely* approaching the United States is Iraq and there is a real, honest-to-goodness low-intensity war being fought there.

In answer to your question of "how are we as a nation different" it is this...the United States has a population of around 300 million and there are approximately 270 *million* guns in private hands--that isn't counting the weapons in the hands of the police or the military. Now, I'm not saying we should abandon the Second Amendment. I *am* saying that before we try to portray the United States as a nation that is uniquely iniquitous in human history, we might want to consider other factors.

In a nation awash in firearms we might want to keep our political rhetoric polite. A nation not awash in guns can afford (but probably shouldn't encourage) to have different parts of the body politic portrayed as enemies of goodness, family and puppies.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

In answer to your question of "how are we as a nation different" it is this...the United States has a population of around 300 million and there are approximately 270 *million* guns in private hands--that isn't counting the weapons in the hands of the police or the military. Now, I'm not saying we should abandon the Second Amendment. I *am* saying that before we try to portray the United States as a nation that is uniquely iniquitous in human history, we might want to consider other factors.

In a nation awash in firearms we might want to keep our political rhetoric polite. A nation not awash in guns can afford (but probably shouldn't encourage) to have different parts of the body politic portrayed as enemies of goodness, family and puppies.

Cheers
Aj

See. I don't think it's the number of guns that a nation has (Canada's estimates range from 7-11 million firearms for about 2-3 million gun owners). The 270 Million guns isn't per person. The last estimate was about 25% of the population in the US had guns. Canada is half that and I've rarely (very rarely with exception to Mark Levine in the 1990s and the FLQ in the 70s) heard of the kind of violence that exists here in the US. Heck, look at Switzerland with a pop of about 7 million and where there is an est 1.2-3 million guns in the household (granted a lot are because the expectation the all citizens make up the national militia). But I think it highlights my next point.

I think it's the culture around guns and the culture of the US itself that leads it to where it goes. As a Canadian living in the US, I'm shocked often by the attitude towards guns (I shouldn't be since I grew up seeing American news regularly as a kid). The thing that strikes me is the overreaching desire or belief that if someone doesn't agree then we'll make them agree at the end of a barrel. To me, that is a foreign concept but seems readily possible here. K often tells me to be careful when going out -- in daylight! -- for fear that something might happen to me. I've never had that kind of fear when living at home, even in downtown Toronto and a street over from a known crack street (yes, it was known not as a crack house but a whole street).

It is why I contend that the rhetoric has a lot to do with the way things go in this country. I do not recall ever seeing this kind of rhetoric in Canada and even when a party I didn't like got elected I knew it wasn't the end of the nation. I knew the party I would have elected would keep them on their toes and challenge them on their policies. That isn't something I see here.

The nation is built on confrontation and continues that today.

[Chancie]

It's incredibly naive to assume that the world around us does not impact us, affect our behavior, infiltrate our thoughts, change us in some way.

[dreadgeek]

See. I don't think it's the number of guns that a nation has (Canada's estimates range from 7-11 million firearms for about 2-3 million gun owners). The 270 Million guns isn't per person. The last estimate was about 25% of the population in the US had guns. Canada is half that and I've rarely (very rarely with exception to Mark Levine in the 1990s and the FLQ in the 70s) heard of the kind of violence that exists here in the US. Heck, look at Switzerland with a pop of about 7 million and where there is an est 1.2-3 million guns in the household (granted a lot are because the expectation the all citizens make up the national militia). But I think it highlights my next point.

And you make an excellent point (thank you for reminding me that Switzerland has a high percentage of gun owners as well). The point I was driving at--not very well--was that I think that the reason(s) for the gun violence in America has much less to do with those parts of our national behavior we may not like (having a standing army, sending that army to fight wars in various and sundry places) and much more to do with cultural issues within the US.



I think it's the culture around guns and the culture of the US itself that leads it to where it goes. As a Canadian living in the US, I'm shocked often by the attitude towards guns (I shouldn't be since I grew up seeing American news regularly as a kid). The thing that strikes me is the overreaching desire or belief that if someone doesn't agree then we'll make them agree at the end of a barrel.

Couldn't agree with you more! We have a culture that glorifies the myth of the lone wolf hero who, against all odds and armed only with his trusty hand cannon, defeats the 'bad guys'. There is also a double-standard at work here that I've already touched on but I'll delve into a little bit more.

Imagine, if you will, that there was a rap group that had songs about Second Amendment remedies being the next natural step after losing an election. Imagine that someone then went out and shot up a supermarket. Is there anyone who doubts that rap music wouldn't be blamed? If the shooter had been a Muslim, is there anyone who doubts that Islam would be blamed? The ONLY reason that Mr. Loughner's alleged actions are his and his alone, is that he is white. His actions will ONLY be considered as symptomatic of a collective outlook is if it turns out that he is a product of the Left (which, while possible, I doubt). Consider that Mr. Obama is considered to be 'palling around with terrorists' because he served on the board of directors of an organization with a man who was a member of the Weather Underground when Mr. Obama was not yet in junior high school! Yet, Mr. Obama is considered to be *directly* responsible for the actions of the Weather Underground. He is also considered responsible for the words of his former pastor, Mr. Wright.

In this nation the rules are this:

If you are a liberal and you say "regime change begins at home" (which may be facile but is, more or less, innocuous) then you are advocating the violent overthrow of the United States.

If you are a conservative and you say "Democrats are a bunch of Marxist, fascist, Islamist terrorists who are more Nazi than the Nazi's were. Wouldn't the world have been saved a lot of trouble if, in 1937, someone had taken out the Nazis before the Anchluss, before Munich, before Poland? We should take out the Democrats before they can do to America what the Nazi's did to German" then no matter WHAT happens afterwards, your words were 'misunderstood' or the 'liberal media' are trying to smear you.

Look, if we're going to hold people to a standard of appropriate political behavior then we should use the same standard instead of a double-standard favorable to one party while making another party walk a *very* short and narrow path. Right now, liberals have no room to maneuver while conservatives, from my perspective, can walk right up to the line where the *next* step has the Secret Service showing up at your down without any consequences.


It is why I contend that the rhetoric has a lot to do with the way things go in this country. I do not recall ever seeing this kind of rhetoric in Canada and even when a party I didn't like got elected I knew it wasn't the end of the nation. I knew the party I would have elected would keep them on their toes and challenge them on their policies. That isn't something I see here.

The nation is built on confrontation and continues that today.

Part of the problem that I, as a liberal, have is that I try to hew pretty close to the facts. I don't think that my opinions are the same thing as the facts which, I hope, are the basis of my opinions. How does one effectively fight the good fight if, for instance, the other side conflates opinion (e.g. the HCR bill has language that after 70, a 'death panel' determines whether you can live another year) and fact (the HCR bill has end-of-life counseling coverage so that people can get help creating a durable power of attorney)?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

It's incredibly naive to assume that the world around us does not impact us, affect our behavior, infiltrate our thoughts, change us in some way.

The truly maddening thing about this is how astoundingly inconsistent it is.

If the subject is rap music, violence in movies or positive portrayals of homosexuality then, according to one prominent political philosophy, Americans are largely blank slates who if they *hear* a song about the glories of violence will go out and commit violence. On the other hand, if someone uses political rhetoric of revolution and overthrow and 'taking out' one's political opponents that language has NO effect in the real world what-so-ever provided that the speaker/writer is from the right. Yet the media will pretend and cover this issue (until the next Brittney Spears explosion of stupidity) as if there were equivalency.

Cheers
Aj

[Ryobi]

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

[dreadgeek]

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

[JustJo]

Part of the problem that I, as a liberal, have is that I try to hew pretty close to the facts. I don't think that my opinions are the same thing as the facts which, I hope, are the basis of my opinions. How does one effectively fight the good fight if, for instance, the other side conflates opinion (e.g. the HCR bill has language that after 70, a 'death panel' determines whether you can live another year) and fact (the HCR bill has end-of-life counseling coverage so that people can get help creating a durable power of attorney)? Cheers
Aj

And, not to derail....but the company I work for does that end-of-life counseling (among a whole host of health and wellness work). I cannot tell you how frequently seniors have thanked us for providing this service to them. Many tell us that their doctors cannot or will not have these conversations with them. They want the facts. They want to make their own decisions. They want to plan ahead. And they struggle to find those who will do that with them.

Providing this service, and making sure it's covered by health insurance, is compassionate, important and respectful - and the furtherst thing from a "death panel" that you can imagine.

[dark_crystal]

While I think it's important to realize that extremist have been around forever, their methods of disseminating propaganda has changed dramatically.

Instead of radical newspapers, subversive flyers, whispered recruiting and basement meetings, these people have 24 hour podiums on multiple tv and radio stations.

That sort of bombardment is HIGHLY effective and I believe it has contributed to the volatile tone of politics today, and helps these psychos hone their hatred and justify their actions.

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/12/notes011211.DTL)

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?' (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/12/was-sarah-palins-blood-libel-comment-a-dog-whistle/)

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

[Ryobi]

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/12/notes011211.DTL)

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"



Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?' (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/12/was-sarah-palins-blood-libel-comment-a-dog-whistle/)

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Actually, the accusation was, Jews used the blood of Christian children to paint the doorways to their homes at passover. That is the first I've heard the matzoh bread example. (used for symbolism of beliefs, not nourishment.) (not jumping on DC, I think she knows.)

I'm not so sure about the dog whistle either. Anyone can "hear" the bullshit 24/7.

Thanks DC!

[Ryobi]

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you for more examples of "readily twisting words and meanings". And please be careful, one of those whack jobs are going to contact you to be their speech writer. lol.

[Medusa]

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

[dreadgeek]

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/ (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/12/notes011211.DTL)

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"



I love me some Mark Morford. I don't always agree with him but he always makes me laugh.


Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?' (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/12/was-sarah-palins-blood-libel-comment-a-dog-whistle/)

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"[/QUOTE]

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. Ms Palin is obviously trying to paint herself as the victim and is going out of her way to portray perfectly reasonable expressions of concern about political rhetoric in spurious stories that people are 'blaming Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting'. Except that isn't what is happening. What's happening is that people are saying, rightly, that if you are trying to see if your gas tank is empty by lighting a match, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your car explodes. Did you *intend* for the car to explode? No. But it blew up nevertheless.

I'm going to risk a "Godwin's Law" violation and point something out:

In the 20s and early 30s, before Hitler came to power, a similar cheeky game was played in Germany and the Nazis worked the refs (i.e. the press) in much the same way. Some Nazi would give a real red-meat, barn-burner of a speech and then some SA thugs would, on their way to the nearest pub, beat up the first Jew or Communist they happened across. Predictable denunciations would follow and the Nazis would claim that no one in the party advocated violence. Then it would happen again. And again. And again. Even as late as the fall of 1938, the Nazis were claiming that no linkage could be made between the anti-Semtic language in the Völkischer Beobachter (Racial Observer) or Der Stuermer (The Stormer or The Attacker) and the violent actions.

Now, I want to be clear that I am NOT---absolutely NOT--comparing the modern American Right with the Nazis. That is not my point here. My point is that the game that is being played has a long provenance. The Nazis used it. American segregationists used the same tactic--they would print or speak the most vile slanders against blacks and then, when someone took them at their word and actually DID something there were, as we are seeing now, the denials that the words of violence had anything to do with violent acts.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

I would say something else is going on. Ms Palin, like a lot of Americans, has learned a lesson that has been hammered home for as long as I have been an adult and, perhaps, a little bit longer. If you are *oppressed* then you are not *responsible*. So the keys-to-the-kingdom are to claim oppression of some sort or another. That way, you are let off the hook--sort of.

We do it (and by 'we', I am talking about my fellow Leftists here). You can see it in almost any discussion of global feminism. If a white Christian man gets up in a pulpit and claims that the Christian Bible teaches that women should dress modestly and if she doesn't and is raped, that man will rightly be condemned as the apologist for sexism that he clearly is. Let the same words drip from the mouth of a Muslim imam in, say, Karachi or Tehran, and suddenly we, as Western feminists, are exhorted to 'understand' the culture or are told that different people have different standards or something else to say that we are wrong in the name of anti-imperialism. After three decades (perhaps more) of watching this play out in the real world, the American Right got the message and are now using it masterfully.

That is why theocratic Christians try to portray opposition to their anti-gay agenda and rhetoric as 'persecution'. Astoundingly, a nation where fully four in every ten Americans consider themselves a 'Bible-believing, evangelical, Christian' these very same people speak of themselves as a beleaguered minority. Companies acknowledging that there are OTHER holidays in December than Christmas is now a 'war on Christmas' and a 'war against Christians'. Why? Because it makes them appear to be victims and then anything they do is, ipso facto, morally pure.

There is more going on than that, though. Despite all the talk of 'freedom', American conservatism has taken a very authoritarian turn (and it was never particularly far removed from authoritarianism in the first place). Word goes from God to the pastor to the person in the pews. Sure, someone will make the passing verbal genuflection toward "look it up yourself" but the average authority in conservative circles--be they political or religious--knows for a certainty that the overwhelming majority of their listeners aren't going to look it up. Argument by fiat is enough. The pastor has a 'calling', he's 'anointed' and therefore he is right. The politician is a 'prayer warrior' and is also 'anointed' and so she is right. The one thing that can NEVER be done is admit to a mistake. They aren't made.

So Katie Couric asking Ms Palin "what newspapers or magazines do you read to keep informed" is suddenly a 'gotcha' question even though that is such a slow ball question that turtles zoom past it. Seriously, right now, see if you can come up with the names of three newspapers and three magazines you *might* want to read if you wanted to stay informed. You have, say, 30 seconds.

Chances are you came up with:

1) Your local paper
2) The New York Times
3) The Washington Post

For magazines you might have come up with:

1) Newsweek
2) Time
3) US News and World Report

Now, you may be thinking "well, I don't read any of those" and that might be true as far as it goes. But no one here had aspirations to be one 70+ year old heartbeat away from the Presidency. If you have aspirations to high political office, I don't think it unreasonable to expect you to read widely and to be able to name some things you've read.

Yet, Ms Palin portrayed herself as the *victim* of Couric and the mythology on the right is that this question was so out of bounds. Why? So she didn't have to admit that she was caught being a lightweight.


Cheers
Aj

[katsarecool]

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

[Ryobi]

*snip*


That is why theocratic Christians try to portray opposition to their anti-gay agenda and rhetoric as 'persecution'. Astoundingly, a nation where fully four in every ten Americans consider themselves a 'Bible-believing, evangelical, Christian' these very same people speak of themselves as a beleaguered minority. Companies acknowledging that there are OTHER holidays in December than Christmas is now a 'war on Christmas' and a 'war against Christians'. Why? Because it makes them appear to be victims and then anything they do is, ipso facto, morally pure.

There is more going on than that, though. Despite all the talk of 'freedom', American conservatism has taken a very authoritarian turn (and it was never particularly far removed from authoritarianism in the first place). Word goes from God to the pastor to the person in the pews. Sure, someone will make the passing verbal genuflection toward "look it up yourself" but the average authority in conservative circles--be they political or religious--knows for a certainty that the overwhelming majority of their listeners aren't going to look it up. Argument by fiat is enough. The pastor has a 'calling', he's 'anointed' and therefore he is right. The politician is a 'prayer warrior' and is also 'anointed' and so she is right. The one thing that can NEVER be done is admit to a mistake. They aren't made.

Cheers
Aj*snip*

This brings up another bothersome thought for me. It seems the people that scream the loudest for less gov't, less gov't, keep the government out of my business, are the same ones that continue to demonstrate what looks like a lack of understanding or flat out refusal to enforce an understanding of the term "separation of church and state".

[Ryobi]

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

Does that mean she doesn't read things before she goes public with it. If so, she's even less bright than I first thought.

[little man]

Does that mean she doesn't read things before she goes public with it. If so, she's even less bright than I first thought.

i suspect she may read it, but her comprhension level doesn't seem so high to me.

[Chancie]

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

I heard part of her speech this am, and I thought, Hmm, this doesn't sound like Sarah Palin. I did wonder if she had practiced reading the speech with conviction. I mean, even politicos with whom I agree use speechwriters. But, I guess we assume that a speechwriter represents the speaker's own style of discourse and political beliefs. I thought I heard her stumble over pundits, and I thought, Well, anyone can make a mistake off a teleprompter. But, we have a right to expect that our powerful elected officials and candidates can speak extemporaneously.

[MsDemeanor]

Switzerland has a high number of gun owners because they practice universal conscription. Every male between the age of 20 and 30-34 (depending on rank) is required to keep a service weapon in his home as part of his military obligation. Once they pass conscription age, they have the option of keeping their weapon.

So, let's set Switzerland aside. The Small Arms Survey of 2007 shows 90 gun per 100 Americans. The next countries on the list are Yemen with 61 per 100, Iraq at 39 per 100, and Serbia at 37.5 per 100. France, Finland, Greece, Canada, Sweden, Austria, and Germany all have 30-32 per 100.

[MsDemeanor]

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

[dark_crystal]

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?' (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/12/was-sarah-palins-blood-libel-comment-a-dog-whistle/)

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. [/QUOTE]

oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.

it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear

[dreadgeek]

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

MsD:

Never let it be said that she doesn’t know how to play the media the way that Irving Berlin could play the violin. She is, without a doubt, the best I've ever seen.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) ran through a litany of violent rhetoric used by prominent American conservatives in just the last year:

Quoting Sharron Angle: "People are looking towards the second amendment remedies and saying my goodness, what can we do to turn our country around."

Angle again: "The first thing we need to do is take out blank." The exact quote: "The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Quoting Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): "I want people in blank armed and dangerous on this issue [of the energy tax] because we need to fight back."

Quoting Glenn Beck: "I want to kill blank with a shovel." The exact quote: "I want to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel."

Beck again: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray blank will burst into flames." The exact quote: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames."

Quoting Texas GOP candidate Stephen Broden: ''Our nation was founded on violence. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' ' The exact quote: ''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' '

Quoting Sarah Palin: "Don't retreat, reload."

Now, if I or one of you reading this posts any of these statements on our blog it may be in bad taste, it may be hyperbolic but it isn't dangerous. I'm not a national figure and chances are, you aren't either. If, on the other hand, you are a figure of national prominence and YOU say something like this that is a completely different matter altogether. Imagine, if you will, Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer saying "if ballots don't work, bullets will". Congress could be out of session, everyone gone back home for some recess or another, and the Republican leadership and every single Washington pundit to the right of Rachel Maddow would be calling for Congress to rush back to D.C., reconvene *immediately* and have the offenders tried for treason.

If you are in or aspire to be in high political office then you should be held to a higher standard.

Full article and video here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/john-dingell-runs-through-litany-of-violent-rhetoric-on-house-floor-video.php?ref=fpblg



Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all.
<snip>

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

[dreadgeek]

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

Linus:

Yes, her map did have a target on Giffords' district. At the time, I wondered what would be her reaction if anyone on that list was actually shot at. Now we know (FWIW, her reaction is about what I expected it to be). It is interesting that on her FB page (now scrubbed) she boasted about the map and how 18 of 20 the Democrats targeted (her words) were defeated. One of the two who weren't is now in an Arizona hospital.

She will continue to say "I never said go shoot someone" and she will continue to be right. She never said those words. It doesn't change the fact that she has said (not implied but said) that the American government in its current incarnation is tyrannical and she has applauded (and mindlessly aped) the Jefferson quote that the 'tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of tyrants'. Now, is she responsible? No. But she should tone down her rhetoric.

Cheers
Aj

[Kobi]

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

[Chancie]

Kobi, you are mistaken. The elected official who was likely the target of the shootings was a progressive in a conservative state. She represents a diametrically different political stance than does the governor of that state.

And I am sure the father of the little girl who was murdered doesn't think her life was inconsequential.

[Linus]

You've gotten to pause and wonder when stuff like this happen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/anthony-miller-resigns-giffords-threats_n_808116.html

...
But the attacks also took on a racial hue. One critic referred to him derogatorily as "McCain's boy," Miller said. Other language was even less ambiguous. At an event in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., Miller said someone called out, "There's Anthony, get a rope."
Yet Miller balks at crying racism.


"To say that anyone has been racially motivated, I can't really draw a conclusion," he said. "But a lot of people told me 'You're not a conservative, you're a RINO.' In my mind, that's just as bad as being called a n-----, honestly. When you call someone a n-----, it's saying they're less than, and RINO is the same thing."


Me personally. I smell racism here but that's just my weird Canuckian view.


Oh.. and what does "RINO" mean? The only "RINO" I heard of was the Rhino Party of Canada (who favoured parties -- like "Party on, dude!" parties -- and weed as their platform)

[Gayla]

What I'm wondering is how anyone can see the violent murder of 6 people, including a chief judge and a 9 year old girl, as "inconsequential".

[betenoire]

She will continue to say "I never said go shoot someone" and she will continue to be right. She never said those words.

Yes, exactly. She is right in the same way that Christine O'Donnell was right when she said that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution.

I mean SURE that exact phrase isn't in there, but, well.

It's all bullshit and semantics.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Can you clarify something?

Do you honestly think the death if 6 people as inconsequential??

What do you mean by this??

[betenoire]

Oh.. and what does "RINO" mean? The only "RINO" I heard of was the Rhino Party of Canada (who favoured parties -- like "Party on, dude!" parties -- and weed as their platform)

Without having to look it up I presume it means Republican In Name Only.

[Linus]

What I'm wondering is how anyone can see the violent murder of 6 people, including a chief judge and a 9 year old girl, as "inconsequential".

Can you clarify something?

Do you honestly think the death if 6 people as inconsequential??

What do you mean by this??


I believe Kobi said the attacker was inconsequential, not the victims. But I could be mistaken.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I believe Kobi said the attacker was inconsequential, not the victims. But I could be mistaken.

I'm not misreading, Kobi called her an inconsequential politician.

What devalued her??

Now please give me the benefit of the doubt by not assuming I just pull info out of my ass.

I read her post 3 times before deciding to hit submit.

[Gayla]

I believe Kobi said the attacker was inconsequential, not the victims. But I could be mistaken.

Snow already said it but, yeah. There is a person, laying in a hospital bed with half of her skull missing. She has a husband and family and, up until a few days, a whole life that she led. Now, through no fault of her own, she doesn't.

Personally, I find the word "inconsequential", used in the context of any person, to be offensive.

[little man]

i read kobi as saying "inconsequential politician", like saying someone is an "ineffecual leader". describes the job, not the person. just 'cause you're a crappy field goal kicker doesn't mean you're a crappy person.

[Linus]

I'm not misreading, Kobi called her an inconsequential politician.

What devalued her??

Now please give me the benefit of the doubt by not assuming I just pull info out of my ass.

I read her post 3 times before deciding to hit submit.

Ah.. I didn't see that first one. My apologies.

[MsDemeanor]

Without having to look it up I presume it means Republican In Name Only.
Yep. It's a derogatory and implies that the person isn't conservative enough.

[betenoire]

Kobi, you are mistaken. The elected official who was likely the target of the shootings was a progressive in a conservative state. She represents a diametrically different political stance than does the governor of that state.

Bears repeating.

[Ryobi]

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics.

oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.

it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear[/QUOTE]

I hadn't made that association. Now I see it. Good point!

[Hack]

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

What Palin's video said to me today was total lack of leadership and insight. Compare what she said to the amazing speech Obama gave tonight (hey, there's the guy I voted for! Nice to have him back.). Obama is in another galaxy compared to where she is on the simple issue of leadership.

Jake

[Hack]

This is back from 2008, right after the Republican convention when Palin accepted the VP nomination. I love Matt Taibbi.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mad-dog-palin-20100405

I love the part about what the images of Palin and Obama stand for. Honestly, when is the Democratic Party going to stand up and say, "Hey, you know what? Intelligence isn't just for the elite. It's for everyone. It should be a value we strive for here in America." God, why does the party let the Republicans use intelligence as a way to insult Obama? I don't get that.

[Just_G]

I was listening to what MSNBC was saying after the memorial, and when they discussed Palin's 8 minute "me" moment, they compared her to an iceburg that is slowly melting and getting smaller and smaller, and that today a big chunk slid off of that iceburg.

I have always said she would dig her own grave...won't be much longer. People are getting more and more sick of her, her mispronunciations, her over use of big words, and her "it's all about me" attitude.

[dreadgeek]

Yes, exactly. She is right in the same way that Christine O'Donnell was right when she said that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution.

I mean SURE that exact phrase isn't in there, but, well.

It's all bullshit and semantics.

Yes, precisely. Agree with the agenda or not (and it's no secret I disagree with it), one can only marvel at the slick propaganda machine that is the modern American conservative movement. It is a marvel to behold if one has any appreciation for the Machiavellian. That dark part of me has an appreciation for well-executed memetic manipulation. What is even more fantastic, and the part that I think both the American media and ordinary citizens should expect to be judged rather harshly on this score, is that they have gotten away with it. Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example.

As you point out, she's technically correct the words 'separation of Church and State' do not appear in the First Amendment. However, any ordinary understanding of the amendment--certainly in common parlance--understands that the language does, in fact, separate the authority of the State and the wishes of the Church and vice versa. If anyone harps on it, Ms O'Donnell can then go on FOX News and run the "liberal elites think they know better than the American people". If it's dropped, she looks like she won. Like I said above, masterful stuff. Now, did Ms O'Donnell come up with this strategy? Not hardly! This has an old provenance on both the Right and the Left because it works. At present it is the Right that has mastered the game.

Remember Ms O'Donnell is a product of the movement that gave us this:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
(Anonymous aide to George W. Bush* as quoted by Ron Suskind in The New Yorker--2004)

Cheers
Aj

[katsarecool]

Does that mean she doesn't read things before she goes public with it. If so, she's even less bright than I first thought.I suspect much of what she read off the teleprompter went right over her head. I am beginning to think she is just a puppet. As I thought GW was a puppet. Too bad no one will get a chance to pull her strings if they had hopes of getting her into the WH.

[MsDemeanor]

I just came back from checking to see what the Freepers were saying about the speech. It seems that it was horrible that people cheered and applauded.

I need a shower.

[key]

I just came back from checking to see what the Freepers were saying about the speech. It seems that it was horrible that people cheered and applauded.

I need a shower.


I knew as soon as I heard the first applause the freepers were going to jump all over it, like they still do when referencing the Wellstone memorial. I admit that I did not feel entirely comfortable hearing cheers when someone named someone who died. But we Americans have so few ways to express our overwhelming emotions.

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

[katsarecool]

I knew as soon as I heard the first applause the freepers were going to jump all over it, like they still do when referencing the Wellstone memorial. I admit that I did not feel entirely comfortable hearing cheers when someone named someone who died. But we Americans have so few ways to express our overwhelming emotions.

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

We are going to see a great deal of this bright young man! The interview he did on Nightline was awesome!!! His speaking ability reminds me of a younger President Obama.

[JustJo]

Remember Ms O'Donnell is a product of the movement that gave us this:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
(Anonymous aide to George W. Bush* as quoted by Ron Suskind in The New Yorker--2004)




I'll bet the ancient Romans felt the exact same way...

[JustJo]

One bright spot that has emerged from this horrible tragedy is Gifford's intern Daniel Hernadez. Wow, that guy has a bright, gay, hispanic future in the D party!

...and a well-deserved one. :rrose:

[Toughy]

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............

-------------
I do find it a bit disturbing to suggest that any member of the House is an 'inconsequential politician'. I am sure that no one in her district thought she was inconsequential before she was shot. Giffords is a 3 term House member.

----------
I watched part of the memorial service and I was a bit skeeved at all the cheering and clapping and hooting and hollering that went on................and it was during the entire service, not just during Obama's words to the country.

[betenoire]

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

Well, you know. As the right moves further to the right, the new definition of "progressive" becomes the old definition of "centrist".

I actually don't know anything about her. I've heard she was pretty gun-rightsy. I'm not sure how she felt about Brewer's antics. I do know she was in favour of HCR.

She probably was pretty centrist. But you know, that's just a few steps away from filthy commie to some people. ;)

[dreadgeek]

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?


No, I have to say that interpretation hadn't occurred to me. However, after reading your post I gamed it out in my head on my drive home from work. It doesn't work for me for a number of reasons:

1) The perpetrator is all wrong. Circumstances have handed any pol wanting to drum up fear in the body politic the *perfect* foil--namely Muslims.

2) The actual deed is wrong. Yes, six people died but there could have been a much higher body count.

3) Giffords survived. If this were a conspiracy she would have died because from a propaganda perspective she is worth far more dead than alive.

What possible benefit would come out of this for a politician or 'the government'? None. If someone is going to take such a HUGE risk as a false-flag operation, there has to be a payoff. There's no payoff to this. Discussion of gun control ( which goes nowhere) and distraction? Not nearly enough.

If the shooter had been a suicide bomber and if said suicide bomber had conveniently been in Pakistan or along the AfPak border area and immediately following there were calls to invade Pakistan then I could see an argument for a false-flag operation. But given the above, I just don't see it. The risks of being caught so outweigh any potential benefits that there's no way someone would green light the kind of operation you are alluding to.

Cheers
Aj

[MsDemeanor]

I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............


Blue Dog and self-described "former Republican"

[dreadgeek]

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?


I actually wanted to add this--and I know this sounds cynical but here goes anyway.

There is no level of gun-violence mayhem that I would put past the American public. Every year, every YEAR, enough people are shot and killed in this country to make up the body count of a decent-sized guerilla war or partisan insurgency. In fact, I would go so far as to say that suicide-bombings not-with-standing, there are hardly any excesses of the most vicious, brutal, hard-fought civil war that cannot be easily and enthusiastically duplicated by an ordinary American walking into a building with his Constitutionally protected firearm.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Well, you know. As the right moves further to the right, the new definition of "progressive" becomes the old definition of "centrist".

I actually don't know anything about her. I've heard she was pretty gun-rightsy. I'm not sure how she felt about Brewer's antics. I do know she was in favour of HCR.

She probably was pretty centrist. But you know, that's just a few steps away from filthy commie to some people. ;)

You know it's really sad but so true. I'm pretty liberal. If there were a way to do it *democratically* I would be in favor of socialism but I don't see any way to have democracy and real nationalization of the economy. So I'm a social democrat. But things have tilted so far to the right that my positions end up being rather centrist.

I've heard (and read) European Leftists say that there is no American Left because positions that seem Left in America would be of the Right in Europe. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it is a sign of how far Right this country has turned.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

She is a Blue Dog Democrat... an acknowledged sub organization of the Democratic party... many of whom refuse to pay dues to the Democratic platform. She is, unlike most Blue Dogs, pro-choice and very supportive of LGBT rights. She is a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus...

The only stated position for the Blue Dogs is fiscal conservatism. I think that most of them tend to be "socially conservative" though... whatever that means (to me a more appropriate term would be socially backwards!). She says she was once Republican...


I thought Rep Giffords was a conservative Democrat............I know I heard that........maybe from Rachel or Thom Hartman or Randi Rhodes............

now I have to try to figure it out............

-------------
I do find it a bit disturbing to suggest that any member of the House is an 'inconsequential politician'. I am sure that no one in her district thought she was inconsequential before she was shot. Giffords is a 3 term House member.

----------
I watched part of the memorial service and I was a bit skeeved at all the cheering and clapping and hooting and hollering that went on................and it was during the entire service, not just during Obama's words to the country.

[betenoire]

I've heard (and read) European Leftists say that there is no American Left because positions that seem Left in America would be of the Right in Europe. I'm not sure if I agree with that but it is a sign of how far Right this country has turned.

Cheers
Aj

I can see that. I mean, for as long as I've been old enough to understand "how things work" and "what things mean" your Republicans have been to the right of our Conservative Party of Canada and your Democrats have also been to the right of our Liberal Party of Canada.

Mind you, our Conservative Party is also moving to the right at a maddening/saddening pace - although not quite as maddening/saddening as your Republicans.

(By the way, I don't consider the Liberal Party to be Leftist at all. I consider them centrist.)

[betenoire]

Tucson Tea Party founder says that the Tea Party is also a victim in the shooting (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/13/2011-01-13_tucson_tea_party_founder_trent_humphries_said_g abrielle_giffords_should_have_had.html#ixzz1AwsTaG 2k)

But, he said, the political rhetoric surrounding the shootings is leaving the Tea Party as an additional victim of the tragedy.


Oh, and also that it's partially Gifford's fault that the shooting happened at all.

The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event.

[Corkey]

Tucson Tea Party founder says that the Tea Party is also a victim in the shooting (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/13/2011-01-13_tucson_tea_party_founder_trent_humphries_said_g abrielle_giffords_should_have_had.html#ixzz1AwsTaG 2k)



Oh, and also that it's partially Gifford's fault that the shooting happened at all.

Typical blame the victims crap, was wondering how long it would take them to flip that lil tidbit.

[dreadgeek]

Typical blame the victims crap, was wondering how long it would take them to flip that lil tidbit.

I know, I was beginning to wonder what took so damn long to get to the "well, it was Giffords own fault..." meme.

Cheers
Aj