Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[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]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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/op...ef=todayspaper

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by 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/op...ef=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/crim...23a32eaf7.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 ... "

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4"]YouTube - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs[/nomedia]


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]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

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]

Originally Posted by Medusa

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?

Originally Posted by pajara2

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'.

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!!!!!

Originally Posted by 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

[Gayla]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

i knew you cared!!!!!

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

[afixer]

Originally Posted by Ebon

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
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]

[quote=afixer;263740]ftr...the political climate has been and always will be ripe for such actions.
link
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.


.

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]

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 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

[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