Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[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

[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/2011/0..._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)

[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 dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Linus

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

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]

Originally Posted by Linus

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]

Originally Posted by Linus

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]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

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]

Originally Posted by betenoire

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]

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.

[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!

[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

[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...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]

Originally Posted by betenoire

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