Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Hack]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Linus

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

[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/2....php?ref=fpblg



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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bears repeating.

[Linus]

You've gotten to pause and wonder when stuff like this happen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._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)