Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

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

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"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"

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.

Was Sarah Palin's '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]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"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?'

"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!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"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?'

"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

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Was Sarah Palin's '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

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

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!