That’s the question being bandied about. Is it possible that Palin bears responsibility for the Arizona shooting spree?
No…of course not.
Our society is slow to embrace the concept of personal responsibility. We want to pass the buck, look for scapegoats and, when all else fails, sue. No one forced the scumbag to shoot anyone, and he’s the one to be held accountable, not Sarah Palin. Otherwise we’re on a slippery slope. Do we blame J.D. Salinger for the death of John Lennon because the douche bag who shot him claimed he was motivated by Catcher in the Rye?
That said…
What else did she expect?
The amount of exposure I’ve had to the public eye is minimal next to Palin’s–not to mention John McCain, her former running mate–and yet I’ve already learned that people will take what you say and twist it and pummel it and transform it into something unrelated. There have been times where I’ve made perfectly innocuous, reasonable statements and then seen them mutated on other sites…hëll, even here sometimes…so that they’re barely recognizable.
Why? Because people have their own agendas.
You guys all know what I’m talking about. For instance, when I wrote the commentary on Huckleberry Finn, how many of you were bracing yourselves for an onslaught of the usual suspects who were going to transform it into, “Peter David wants to be able to call blacks by disparaging terms just like Mark Twain.”
The point is: People can, and do, read malicious intent into even the most reasoned and neutral statements. I’ve figured that out. You guys have figured that out.
Why hasn’t Sarah Palin figured that out? Why haven’t all the talking heads who characterize people with opposing opinions as traitors or Nazis–people who are unAmerican and enemies of the country rather than simply citizens who believe something else–figured that out?
When you put out a political map with crosshairs on it…
What do you think is going to happen?
When you constantly express yourself using gun rhetoric involving reloading…
What do you think is going to happen?
Yes, there will always be lunatics. If that was not the case, presidents wouldn’t require the Secret Service. John Wilkes Booth didn’t require Fox News or Sarah Palin to believe that Lincoln was a tyrant who needed to be shot. And lord knows that political assassination isn’t exactly rare in other countries.
On the other hand, when you have a political campaign that’s geared around guns, a 24-hour news cycle, and you’re pasting targets on opponents, which is sure to appeal to the absolute worst aspects of human behavior…
In other words, if people will take the most benign statements and twist them to extremes, then what are they likely to do with sentiments expressed in the most extreme way imaginable?
I mean, Sarah Palin doesn’t even like it when her or her family is targeted for jokes, for God’s sake. Yet she painted targets on other politicians?
What…did she think…was going…to happen?
PAD
• 
I rather liked this quote:
Sort of sums up the general overall impression that i get of the Tea Party and its rhetoric…
Article at AP on how all the talking heads are calling for dialing back the rhetoric (presumably mainly meaning the other guys’ irrational diatribes and not their own coolly reasoned analyses, but i digress…)
.
The last couple grafs quote Jon Stewart, and truer words were never spoke.
.
“On Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” conservative host Bill O’Reilly decried “the far-left MSNBC line. The hatred spewed on that cable network is unprecedented in the media.”
.
Because in O’Reilly’s world the word “unprecedented” obviously means “mild when compared to my show and the Fox News Network.”
Unprecedented?
.
“You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
.
PAD
I think what it’s going to come down to is that all the talking heads are going to agree that the other side really needs to knock it the hëll off.
.
PAD
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
You ask what did Sarah Palin think was going to happen? I submit that it’s highly probable that she didn’t think at all.
.
She really is THAT stupid.
Interesting dicussions, all – right or wrong, knee jerk or not.
.
But I have my own opinion, and – playing Cassandra – I think it’s one that the psychologists may come up with after some intensive mental examinations of this guy.
.
I personally am not a mental health specialist, but I believe I recognize the symptoms of the condition this man may suffer from. I think that it might take into account Sarah Palin’s maps, the rhetoric in both the conservative and liberal media, the second amendment, and other contributing factors.
.
But my analysis is…
.
HE’S F***ING CRAZY!
.
Whatever happened to crazy as an excuse? HIS BRAIN DOESN’T WORK RIGHT. Whatever he was exposed to… HE IS A MALFUNCTIONING PIECE OF HUMAN HARDWARE.
.
That’s one Bad Clown’s opinion, of course. Please return to attributing this to social and political causes.
.
ELS
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
.
Oh, I’m sure he’s crazy as hëll. His sanity checked out and left the hotel reality a long, long time ago. But it’s gotten to the point with the rhetoric that I sometimes find myself wondering if a lot of the talkers (and a few of the politicians) on the Right aren’t actually hoping to push the unstable over the edge.
Well, when you look at how quickly some on the Right looked and found somebody (whom I’ve never heard of) on the Left that apparently wanted Obama to have a “Oklahoma City”, as if that could be a good thing, I’m sure a few of those same individuals need a mirror.
.
But then, go back to the insinuation that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. More than half of Americans believed it was true; a good number probably still believe it. Yet, the Bush White House could simply hide behind “Well, we never said those exact words, so it’s not our fault what people believe”, and try wash their hands clean of it.
.
The power mongers within the GOP have to love the ‘birther’ movement and the distraction it constantly brings. Others have all but wished for another 9/11 under Obama just to show that he and the Democrats won’t be able to keep this country safe. There are other examples.
.
“People are a problem.”
Tragically, Eric, since you’ve decided to play Cassandra, the good news is that you’re absolutely right, but unfortunately, we’re not able to believe you because that’s the curse Apollo put on you.
.
PAD
Ðámņ, there goes my chances to use Eric in Vegas.
But… but… you mean, when I say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes, no one believes me?
.
Wow, it’s a good thing that I didn’t tell anyone my prediction of the second American Revolution in a couple or three decades…
.
ELS
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
But… but… you mean, when I say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes, no one believes me?
.
No, I think you’d be okay with that, if you’re commenting on something that’s right in front of everybody. If you said that the Emperor was going to come out with no clothes, then no one would believe you.
.
Wow, it’s a good thing that I didn’t tell anyone my prediction of the second American Revolution in a couple or three decades…
.
I don’t believe it.
.
PAD
Eric: Whatever happened to crazy as an excuse?
.
Well, just because a wolf is a savage, wild animal doesn’t mean it’s not a bad idea to poke it with a stick. Part of the reason we talk about calming down the rhetoric is because we know the crazy people are out there, drinking it in like Redbull.
Mr. Bryant, you have a good point. But I also think that, in some cases – and this _may_ be one of them – the balloon is going to explode whether someone heats it up or not.
.
There are people who are only vaguely balanced, and the media assault is the unbalancing factor. But I’m just sayin’… there are also some people who are just nuts no matter what, and they’ll do what they do no matter what.
.
ELS
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
Eric: Mr. Bryant, you have a good point. But I also think that, in some cases – and this _may_ be one of them – the balloon is going to explode whether someone heats it up or not.
.
Yes, I’ve said that several times myself several times.
.
However, if it may be true in some cases that the bad thing was going to happen no matter what, then the opposite is true as well. In some cases the crazy person might actually have been on the border line and something pushed him over. Just because wolves attack without provocation sometimes doesn’t mean it’s okay to provoke them. We can’t insure that something like this will never happen again, but I believe that we can control ourselves enough to reduce the odds.
.
Plus, the inflamed rhetoric isn’t worth defending, anyway. Comments about how the 2nd amendment makes it okay to shoot someone if an election doesn’t go your way shouldn’t be uttered in the first place. When someone does say that, the crowd, even if they support the speaker, should have the sense to boo that statement. It’s not civil discourse, it’s just violent rhetoric designed to make people shut off their brains and make decisions emotionally. We’re better off without it even ignoring the psychopath problem.
If this was a nonfunctioning piece of human hardware, WHY was it allowed control of perfectly functional firearms?
Don’t get me wrong — I am a (classical) conservative who believes that Gun Control is hitting what you aim at — but I don’t think that automobiles, heavy machinery, firearms, or dangerous chemicals should be allowed to be used by those who cannot use them safely and sanely.
Mr. Stewart – I think the answer is that it’s a case of reverse profiling in the USA (similar to “innocent until proven guilty.”) Incompetent people shouldn’t be carrying firearms, or driving, or using heavy machinery.
.
But how do we tell without assuming? Even with circumstantial evidence, Americans – proudly – assume that everyone is competent and able to function in society. Someone has to go pretty far afield for society to say to them, “Okay, you get no gun, you get no Buick, and here’s your Nerf scissors…”
.
ELS
x<]:o){
The Bad Clown…
They say this guy was a 9/11 “truther”. Will those folks rethink their rhetoric? I mean, a guy hears that the United States Government deliberately staged a series of fake attacks that killed thousands to justify a war that killed tens of thousands and erode civil liberties…that, in essence, we are living under a terrorist regime…and he goes and tries t kill a member of this evil cabal.
.
Is that so surprising? In the movies–and his own mind–that would make him a hero.
.
That’s one reason why I tend to think that most truthers don’t even believe their own nonsense–if you really really believed it you’d OF COURSE be out their fomenting violence against the government. Why the hëll not? Or at least quit your job and get off the grid so they can’t get you and your family.
.
Maybe this loon just wasn’t in on the joke.
.
One thing we can all agree on–that may have been the worst mugshot ever, unless he is going for the insanity defense, in which case, well played.
I do dispute the idea of calling the shooter “crazy” or a “loon.” He very effectively accomplished what he set out to do — the fact that Giffords is still alive is more a testament to the intern who responded so quickly than a “failure” on his part. His actions were cold, calculated, deliberate and premeditated. I think we want to classify evil that is so alien to us as “insanity.” This might actually do a disservice to the truly mentally ill.
Even if he’s classified with a host of mental issues, the larger issues remain that our existing gun laws failed us and perhaps enabled this terrorist attack to take place.
Regarding Palin — I was not surprised by her reaction and the backpedaling, especially if she has larger political aspirations. I imagine many hoped that she would respond like the teenager who — frustrated that his parents won’t extend her curfew, says she “hates them and wishes they were dead” and then is devastated when circumstances make it that those are the last words she says to them (I know several people who have to live with this. Life’s sense of irony is great.) Yes, the teenager’s words did not cause her parents’ death, just as Palin’s map probably did not inspire this shooting, but it’s the sort of thing to still feel shameful about.
Being able to do something crazy does not mean you aren’t crazy. Crazy is not the same as incompetent. You can be one hëll of a good tailor but if you are using human skin you probably will be rightly judged as having serious issues.
.
His writings are clear indications of insanity, as is the fact that after 1 day in class with him people were worried about him showing up with a gun. What I’ll be interested in seeing is just how much clear evidence of his insanity was ignored by people. Amid the rush to score political points it would be nice if maybe we wondered if something better could be done with people who are clearly in a downward spiral.
You can be one hëll of a good tailor but if you are using human skin you probably will be rightly judged as having serious issues.
.
Okay, now you know I’m just going to start calling you “Buffalo Bill” from now on, right, Bill?
.
PAD
It puts the lotion on its skin…
“You know the worst part? I’m really a very GOOD tailor.”
.
(Okay, different tailor, but hey…)
Go back to Tool Time, Tim.
.
Whattaya MEAN, not that kinda tailor?
That dámņ ‘liberal media’ is at it again (he said facetiously):
.
U.S. majority doesn’t blame rhetoric for Giffords shooting
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110111/us_nm/us_usa_shooting_congresswoman_poll
.
Sadly, this is the kind of validation that many (ie, Newt Gingrich) will look for in saying such rhetoric is not only ok, but should continue as soon as possible.
What the poll didn’t tell you is that 67% of the people surveyed said, “Rhetorics? Who listens to rhetorics anymore? I don’t even have a rhetoric player. I download all my music from iTunes.”
.
PAD
As someone currently teaching a university course called Rhetoric in Pop Culture, I find that joke depressing. Sadly, painfully accurate, and depressing.
So if the media were liberal they would not have reported the results of the poll??? If you think that “liberal” means “dishonest” why is anyone surprised that only 1 out of 5 people call themselves liberal?
I dislike both terms. Conservative sounds to me as a description for someone who opposes any change. Liberals sounds as a description for someone who wants change for change’s sake.
.
I agree with what Chris Rock said on one of his HBO specials. It is about the issues. I lean to the left or the right depending on the issue.
If you think that “liberal” means “dishonest” why is anyone surprised that only 1 out of 5 people call themselves liberal?
.
Maybe they’re surprised because it’s actually one in four people, according to the Pew Research Institute. Twenty-two percent. Of course, I’m rounding up; but then, I’m a liberal.
.
http://people-press.org/report/636/
.
PAD
So if the media were liberal they would not have reported the results of the poll???
.
Considering that far too often people have come on to this very blog parroting the right-wing view of the “dámņ liberal media” when the media is simply report the facts (ie, often the painful truth)…
.
If you think that “liberal” means “dishonest”
.
I don’t think that, but the right-wing has certainly spun it that way over the years. Pick your buzzword; they’ve attempted to make the word synonymous with all that is wrong in this country.
.
Apparently attempting to mock that isn’t worth the effort.
If the media leans left it does not necessarily follow that they would fail to report the facts. You can be biased without being dishonest.
.
You were joking, cool, but I’ve seen people do exactly what you did as though it were a profound thought. “The New York Times did 20 stories on Whitewater! So much for THEM being liberal!” that kind of thing, which is easy to counter with an example of say, Fox news commissioning and reporting on a poll that shows Obama ahead of McCain by double digits or Bush being only marginally more popular than anthrax spores. So, obviously, so much for that meme of Fox being conservative! Then they defriend me on facebook which is one less farmville update I need to see, so win-win.
.
I see the liberal bias manifesting itself not so much in lying as in just carelessness. Example today that ties in to the subject at hand: a guest editorial in the New York Times from a Democratic former congressman,Paul Kanjorski, asking for more civility in our political discourse:“Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation”
.
Touching stuff. Too bad this is the SAME guy who last fall had this to say about Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for Florida governor: “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a dámņ crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”
.
1 out of 5 (almost 1 out of 4!) liberals in this country and a whole bunch of them out of work congressmen and THIS was the guy they picked to write an essay on civility??? Was this a belated gift to conservatives, all of whom are having much merry fun with this? It’s careless and dumb and I can only assume that it never occurred to them that a simple google search would have revealed him to be right up there with Preston Brooks as someone not to listened to on the subject of civil political discourse (unless his essay included an abject apology, which apparently never occurred to him).
PAUL E. KANJORSKI
last fall a democratic congressman recently booted out on his ášš h
today he has a guest editorika in the New York Times asking for more civility in politics. Seriously.
er…ignore that last bit…I was cutting and pasting from facebook and forgot to delete the parts I didn’t use…and no, I don’t know what an editorika is.
I see the liberal bias manifesting itself not so much in lying as in just carelessness.
.
And yet, carelessness is generally less dangerous than being truly dishonest. The latter of which you often get with the likes of Fox News, who employs Sarah Palin as a contributor.
.
The media is by no means perfect, but the right-wing solution of upping the amount of right-wing bias in the media is no solution at all.
Yet Again Mr. Mulligan cooler heads prevail.
.
Craig….Did you read Bills whole post or did you stop at the first paragraph? Both parties have their share of evil finger pointers. Both parties have their venom spewing hate mongers, for every right wing, in your opinion, hater I can match it with a lefty hater. For either side to stand up and proclaim the other as the original haters is laughable.
I wouldn’t say the right wing extremists are “the original haters.”
.
They just seem to have perfected it.
.
PAD
I wouldn’t say the right wing extremists are “the original haters.”
.
They just seem to have perfected it.
.
Just exactly what I’m talking about…
Laughable
1 out of 5 (almost 1 out of 4!) liberals in this country and a whole bunch of them out of work congressmen and THIS was the guy they picked to write an essay on civility???
.
Typically guest editorials are written and submitted on spec and the newspaper decides that the sentiments are interesting enough to print.
.
You seriously think that “liberal bias” caused them to miss a hyperbolic comment he made in Scranton nearly three years ago? Seriously?
.
PAD
“Laughable?” I was being complimentary. MSNBC is a pale imitation of Fox. Air America crashed and burned while Rush just keeps going and going. The right wing is just way better at getting the message out, is all I was saying.
.
Also, I took the liberty of cleaning up your post since you screwed it up to such a degree that every subsequent post was suddenly in bold face.
.
PAD
.Did you read Bills whole post or did you stop at the first paragraph?
.
Did you read all of the posts made here today, or did you pull a Jerome and pick out one ‘at random’ among many?
PAD said:You seriously think that “liberal bias” caused them to miss a hyperbolic comment he made in Scranton nearly three years ago? Seriously?
.
No I dont think its “Liberal Bias” that the Times didnt mention it, if thats the “them ” your talking about, thats pretty much the norm for the Times, but for craig to not mention it, thats just convenient.
The comment was made last October not three years ago.
No I dont think its “Liberal Bias” that the Times didnt mention it,
.
Thanks for clarifying that, Pat. Then again, since I was quoting Bill’s article, I would have thought it obvious that I was talking to Bill, not you.
.
On the other hand, yeah, it turns out his statement was from October. When I read the article, it started out talking about comments he made back in 2008 and it wasn’t clear on first reading that the subsequent comments weren’t from the same time period. None of which changes the fact that I doubt it was “liberal bias” that prompted them not to check an interview done in Scranton. Which I know you didn’t claim, but since you inserted yourself into a statement that wasn’t addressed to you, I might as well say it to you.
.
PAD
but for craig to not mention it, thats just convenient.
.
It’s just as convenient that you didn’t respond to me about whether you had read the rest of the posts in the thread.
.
But then, if you had, you’d see that everybody has brought up plenty of examples of all kinds of people talking out both ends over this issue. I simply chose not to rehash that argument.
.
And, last I checked, Mr. Forum Nazi, you don’t get to decide what I respond to.
Wow, hold a grudge much?
.
Again. Laughable
.
Oh and thank you ever so much for fixing my screwed up posts
Craig said: And, last I checked, Mr. Forum Nazi, you don’t get to decide what I respond to.
.
What in the living Hëll are you talking about????? I didnt know I had the power to decide what you responded to…Cool
.
Yes craig, I have read all the posts. So sorry that I didnt get that response to you in the allotted that you have deemed appropriate.
.
Mr. Forum Nazi??? Are you not taking your meds again?
Let me know when you and Jerome plan the family reunion, as I want to make sure somebody has photographs to make sure you’re not actually one and the same person.
.
But then, I simply want to hold you to the same standard to which you hold me. So I expect a slew of posts from you toward others who have only responded to part of a comment, rather than all of the comment.
.
We can’t have any bias now, can we?
Case in point in this very sub-thread: I made a comment, posted the link, and then made another comment. This sub-thread spun out of Bill responding to my initial comment, and not the latter parts.
.
Personally, I find the subject of whether the poll validates the rhetoric to be an interesting one worth exploring, but apparently nobody else does.
.
But, to each their own; I’m not demanding that Bill respond to that part of my comment. Although, feel free to ream Bill for me, Pat, for being so selective in his responses.
Ok craig knock yourself out
Wow, hold a grudge much?
.
For someone so quick to ask others what in the living hëll they’re talking about, you sure make some oblique statements.
.
The fact is that the left hasn’t changed all that much from when Will Rogers joked that he didn’t belong to any organized political party since he was a Democrat. The left sucks at getting its message out because half the time the message is incoherent and disorganized. The right wing, on the other hand, does a much better job of staying on message and sticking to the talking points. There’s no grudge involved; at most, it’s grudging admiration.
.
PAD
Unfortunate happenstance. That said, there is no equivalency between a one-time, off-the-cuff comment about wanting to do grievous harm to a crook (think back to similar remarks about Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay), and repeated rhetoric about using deadly force against political enemies because their ideology is different and their legislative accomplishments irk you.
Sasha said: Unfortunate happenstance. That said, there is no equivalency between a one-time, off-the-cuff comment about wanting to do grievous harm to a crook (think back to similar remarks about Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay), and repeated rhetoric about using deadly force against political enemies because their ideology is different and their legislative accomplishments irk you.
.
Sorry but this is again exactly what I’m talking about. Oh sure he said “Put him against the wall and shoot him.” but he only said it once, an off-the-cuff comment printed in a newspaper with over 3 quarters of a million readers. Just once
.
Please
I seem to have come in late and missed your original comment (which is buried too far in to find). What exactly are you talking about?
Sasha,
I will not excoriate you for not reading all the posts before commenting.
In a nutshell, please keep in mind I’m paraphrasing, I’m sure others will jump in and correct me. I dont think either side of the political wing should be pointing fingers over who is fostering hate with their rhetoric. Like I said, in a nutshell.
.
By the way….Can you tell me how you get your posts to display the way they are? Your posts are the easiest to follow and I seem to have troubles posting clear responses.
.
Thanx. 🙂
.
.
Understandable, but I would assert in a civil and reasoned discussion about the current state of political rhetoric, to suggest that both sides do it and are equally to blame is to engage in false equivalency.
.
.
I use the blockquote tag.
Very cool, Thanks for the tip!!:)
It’s like that. I don’t, have never, taken any of SP’s gun references as a call to violence. The cross hairs on the map? Those were targets she wanted to “Take out” for sure, but only symbolicly. I’m going to her the slightest bit of credit here and say that what she meant was that Ms. Gifford would be destroyed *politically*, not phyically.
*******
SER: Yeah, but even that interpretation is everything wrong with politics now. It’s a zero sum game. Giffords voted the wrong way on one bill and the only option is her political “destruction.” Setting aside the fact that you will be hard-pressed to find an elected official who will agree with you every single time, the most constructive method is to take advantage of open democracy. It’s not just voting for or against people every couple of years. It’s also about advocating for what you believe in. Palin didn’t promote flooding Gifford with letters, e-mails, or phone calls expressing your point of view and asking her to explain hers. The only solution was to fire her (and of course the many people who work for her). Even the most ruthless business doesn’t function this way. You try to find consensus. Ironically, Giffords was shot at the venue for this open democracy — the type of accessibility to elected officials that’s rare.
********
“Don’t Retreat, Reload.?” If those were the words spoken by Washington to his troops on that cold night crossing the Delware they would be enshirined on the steps of the Capital today. That *is* the spirit of America. We don’t run from anything. We *don’t* retreat, we *do* reload. We dig our heels in and face the problem head on.
********
SER: Perhaps. But here’s the thing: There’s a difference between never giving up and violence. Gandhi and MLK never gave up but they never resorted to violence. Violence is a tragedy. It’s not just the noble image of someone on a horse after claiming a hill. It’s the failure of diplomacy. Yes, it’s sometimes necessary. You can’t really reason with bin Laden, but my hope was that what we’d gained from the lessons of King was that we would see the value of diplomacy and non-violence.
.
Just wondering…
.
The Conservatives in the media are fond of saying, “words mean things.” As a matter of fact, they love attacking Hollywood, movies, TV, books and music because kids/people watching/listening to/reading those things will be influenced to do bad things and certainly anyone engaged in the foul rhetoric of an MSNBC or Air America is going to provoke someone to do something.
.
They’re also big on claiming that we all need more “personal responsibility” in our lives around what we say and what we do.
.
So how is it that whenever something happens, even things with much clearer lines connecting them as dots to the action, it’s suddenly their words that don’t really mean anything at all and they have no responsibility?
Oh, I could go off on quite a tangent about not only this kind of thing, Jerry, but the fact that religious types among the Right also tend to be the ones that “cling” to their guns the most.
.
.
I found this on Twitter just a few minutes ago, and I find it to be particularly relevant:
.
“Palin and crew are feeling unjustly blamed for the actions of an extremist. Maybe they can ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that.”
I wish I had said that.
.
The Right is very fond of blaming ANYTHING bad that has ever happened on the atmosphere of “moral decay” created by today’s media.
.
So, now we shouldn’t blame the poor, little Conservatives for the atmosphere of fear and confrontation they’ve created?
.
Cry me a f***ing river.
And conversations and attitudes like this sure help republicans and such get past the them vs me mentality. Broad generalizations and such are always productive.
.
Yup, I expect to see big changes in speach in the coming weeks… (holding breath)
Assigning ANY blame whatsoever to Palin–or anyone else other than the lunatic himself–is absolutely asinine. You’re blaming her because she puts crosshairs on a map? Learn some history. Politicians have been doing that since, well, forever. Seriously. Take a deep breath. here. NOBODY is to blame for this tragedy except for the shooter himself.
Alan, you should take a deep breath yourself, then actually *read* what PAD wrote. You’re oversimplifying what he said.
Jason, I very carefully read what PAD wrote. He started out saying that he didn’t blame her, then took a few turns off the beaten path to come around and say that, when all is said and done, she is somewhat responsible due to what she says and how she puts crosshairs on a map. I can read between the lines very well.
Do me a favor: Don’t read between the lines. Read the lines, don’t substitute your imagination for my assertions, and don’t attack your misinterpretation of what I say. It’ll save you aggravation and the site some bandwidth.
.
PAD
.
Alan, you’re reading, but you’re not really understanding what you’re reading. It’s not just the map and it’s not just Palin. There’s been an increasing level of violent language and imagery being fed into the national political discourse of late that is more insane than some of the stuff that got thrown around back in the dark old days of politics when people would challenge each other to duels over this garbage.
.
In the last few years we’ve had people ranging from prominent conservative talking heads to actual elected Republicans who have been throwing around dehumanizing rhetoric, racial garbage and calls to consider gun violence if the 2010 elections didn’t go their way. You turn on a talk radio station and it’s an almost nonstop 24/7 barrage of garbage like this. You turn on fox News and it’s an almost nonstop 24/7 barrage of garbage like this. And more than just occasionally these talk show and “news” hosts are joined by Republican politicians and political hopefuls who smile, nod their heads and tell the hosts how right they are no matter how insane the rhetoric. And then you open up a news paper or go to a blog and there’s someone, maybe a nobody, maybe a well known entity, quoting them and expanding on the insanity.
.
And then the paranoid nuts out there feed on this stuff.
.
Now, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I think Palin is a poor poster child for this discussion. Her comments are relatively mild compared to the politicians who have actually said that they want their constituents armed and dangerous, that they want to get hunting parties together to thin the liberal herds or that conservative voters should consider bullets if they don’t get what they want with ballots. I’ve also said here before that the final blame for any act, whether that act was crashing a plane into a building or simply pulling a trigger, is on the person who does it. But other things can contribute.
.
I am professionally in the position to tell you that an unstable person with tendencies towards violence and paranoia can be talked down and away from a violent act with the right tone of voice, the right words and the right attitude even when they’re in a violent mood. Likewise, you can talk one of those people into acting out even worse than they might otherwise have done.
.
Some of the people out there that are unstable may act out and lash out one day because of something incredibly innocuous and unrelated in any way towards violence just because they’re finally hitting their tipping point. However, some of the paranoid ones are certainly going to get to that point faster when elected officials, people who are in positions of authority, are telling them and everyone else directly or agreeing with a talk show idiot that person or group “X” are Un-American, that they want to kill your grandmother, that they want to take from you and give it to someone undeserving because you’re white and the black President wants to force reparations on the country, that they hate America and Americans, that they hate white people, that they’re fascists and communists who want to destroy your country and your way of life and then add on to that pile of horse šhìŧ the idea that getting your gun and your ammo ready for use and getting ready to go if/when the elections don’t turn out the way you want them to.
.
There is always going to be an “Us VS Them” mentality to politics and the way that politics is discussed and covered in the media. However, there is a point where the “Us VS Them” mentality crosses a line. That line gets crossed when the mainstream of your side, not simply the fringe, but the mainstream of your side, starts talking about acts of violence as an acceptable option. When you’ve crossed that line and, as have many in the Republican Party and the Conservative movement in the last few years, left that line far, far behind you…
.
Yeah, you may not be criminally liable, but you share the blame.
First off, you’re still simplifying. It’s not just “what she says and how she puts crosshairs on a map.” That makes it sound like she just scribbled something down while talking to some friends at lunch. What she’s actually been doing is a regularly using violent imagery from a very high soap box for over two years.
.
Second, the guy who did the shooting is responsible and PAD was clear about that. However, there is a reasonable point here about how a wild animal might be wild, but people still have a responsibility not to provoke it. I don’t know that this particular attack wouldn’t have happened without all the violent rhetoric that’s been happening lately. However, with militias sprouting up all over the country and politicians saying things like, “Don’t retreat, reload,” you can’t reasonably claim that one thing *doesn’t* feed off the other.
.
If a guy at a bar gets drunk and starts a fight, sure, he’s responsible for his own actions. That doesn’t mean his buddy is blameless for pointing to some random guy and saying, “Hey, I think that áššhølë is hitting on your girl. You gonna take that?” That jerk is making a dangerous person worse, even if he isn’t specifically saying, “You should hit him.”
.
Before this shooting happened, I thought the constant macho threatening of people like Palin and Michele Bachmann was a bad idea. I don’t know that this tragedy wouldn’t have happened without them, but I still think it was a bad idea. That’s all anyone is saying here. It’s a reasonable point.
This was supposed to be a response to Alan, but I put it in the wrong place.
For the bar fight analogy to make sense, it should be that he watched “Roadhouse” before going out to the bar, and it pushed him to get in a bar fight.
.
Cause really, if we’re talking what can influence unstable minds, then we have to include movies, games, books, and music, which have as much influence on weak minds as do anything talking heads say. However, it’s a very very scary road to go down. I’d rather not.
.
I do agree with encouraging folks to watch their words, language, and imagery. But the moment we start looking at what “provokes” folks, is when we open the door to banning “Taxi Driver” or “Catcher in the Rye”.
I disagree with your version of the analogy.
.
Roadhouse is just a movie. It’s fiction.
.
An elected official is someone with authority. When they say that the constitution was specifically written so that we could shoot the politicians we disagree with, that has a lot more power than any work of fiction. That’s why I used a friend at the bar in my analogy. This constant barrage from Politicians, backed up by cheering crowds as they talk about using the bullet box when the ballot box fails (which is a phrase that sounds like it was *designed* to only be understood by crazy people) is more like a respected friend than a piece of fiction. It’s a real person saying that this is acceptable behavior.
.
No Jerry, because there’s a big difference between worrying about everything we put in our entertainment because anything might set someone off and having actual politicians suggesting that violence should be considered by their supporters if they don’t win an election.
.
There’s a difference between “violent” fantasy that someone watches for entertainment VS seeing and hearing people you think are telling the truth, “news” people and politicians pushing fear mongering and alluding to violence as an okay thing or an inevitability that’s coming their way and needs to be met with people ready for violence.
.
While I’m sure that some would love to blur those distinctions for their purposes, those are like comparing apples and pumpkins.
PC is onerous enough, but now we’re supposed to consider how crazies might react when engaging in political discourse? How much farther will we bow down to the tyranny of politeness?
.
When Obama made the statement that has been much quoted here about bringing a gun when his opponents brought a knife, I didn’t take offense. I didn’t think he was seriously calling for my shooting. I only found it sadly funny that no one on the left called him into account for the “gang rhetoric.”
.
People on the left knew Obama wasn’t really calling for the brandishing of weapons. However, they’re quick to assume the right is. So it follows the left can talk in gang terms because they don’t mean it, and no crazies listen to them. However the right cannot speak in gun rhetoric because they have murder in their hearts, and are a massacre waiting to happen.
.
And while we’re on the subject, I hear people using the term, “crazy” and “unstable” to decsribe the perp. Whatever happened to “evil?” Or are moral judgments like that passe now?
But now we’re supposed to consider how crazies might react when engaging in political discourse?
.
Some of the stuff being said is about as far from ‘engaging’ in ‘discourse’ as you can get. It’s outright advocating violence if you don’t get what you want.
.
Tyranny of politeness? That’s complete bûllšhìŧ.
I think it goes without saying that anyone who does what he does is evil. Evil and crazy are not mutually exclusive, in fact I think they almost always go together in modern society. I suppose there are examples where an evil is perpetuated through culture–genital mutilation of girls in primitive Islamic societies is evil but the perpetrators are too brainwashed to see it as such.
.
The most evil would be someone who does evil not out of cultural conditioning or mental imbalance but out of a desire for personal gain. Even then, couldn’t you argue that this person is missing something the rest of us have?
.
“And while we’re on the subject, I hear people using the term, “crazy” and “unstable” to decsribe the perp. Whatever happened to “evil?” Or are moral judgments like that passe now?”
.
Because not everybody that’s crazy, even the violently crazy, are evil. I’ve dealt with people who are as sweet as daisies when they’re on their meds and have everything under control but will flip like a switch and go after their co-workers with a paperweight or a letter opener when they stop taking their meds for more than a day.
.
Chemical imbalances in the brain can be tricky things. They can manifest themselves as full on, batshit crazy that screams for help in giant neon letters or they can just be small festering things that build and build as the condition gets worse.
.
Evil can certainly be crazy, but crazy ain’t always evil.
Bill,
“Stop. reporting. On. Them. And they will fade away.
.
This is not just my sage opinion. I lived in Kansas when these idiots began to make a name for themselves. After a while the media ignored them. that’s when they went national, looking for attention.
.
What they would do if everyone ignored them I don’t know. Mass jonestown suicide maybe.”
.
Here’s a better idea. Organize a counter demonstration, in which people are singing songs of peace and love. From a REAL church, even. That’s what happened in my area when these sick scumbags tried their hateful crap during the funeral of a local soldier.
.
They saw they would be drowned out and slithered away like the snakes they are. Problem solved. We don’t put up with that crap around here.
I go to Kansas University, Westboro’s backyard, so suffice to say, the show up frequently. And there’s always a counterprotest, usually better organized than Westboro’s. And frankly, it didn’t really do much to discourage them. So I agree with Bill that the best thing to do is ignore them. But I don’t think that will stop them… after all, going national I wouldn’t say is a reaction to sane Kansans dismissal because somebody, somewhere gave them financial support to preach their message of not having a message.
To tie back with the regular point, I just find it sad that the response to this violence isn’t lessened rhetoric, but more vitriolic stuff from Limbaugh, Westboro, etc. I guess we just have to our part and hope it’ll be a good enough example to the crazies.
Oh, and here’s AZ’s Congressional candidate in a 2006 campaign commercial against JD Hayworth, using crosshairs on him. Waaaaaay back in 2006. Strangely, this has not been part of the “debate”. Wait, not so strange. because it doesn’t fit the media’s narrative.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA
.
Except it basically has been discussed by some of the media. Hëll, I was surprised as hëll to see that the ego that is Olbermann spent a part of the other night saying that everyone has screwed up on this to some degree or another and that even he’s screwed up with some of the rhetoric and needs to be one of the people reworking his show and some of his antics.
.
But the other thing is that the drumbeat of flat out violent rhetoric coming from high profile members of the Right in this country in the last few years dwarfs the stuff coming out of the Left in this country. And what isn’t violent is largely promoting fear and almost end of days talk about our democracy under those people.
And conversations and attitudes like this sure help republicans and such get past the them vs me mentality. Broad generalizations and such are always productive.
This bothers me. This still points to the “left” as wronging the right, without ever allowing the possibility that the right has, indeed, done anything wrong.
Why would it hurt to admit some wrong doing?
Because Little Jeebus won’t love him no more if he admits he might be wrong…
I have no sympathy for people like the head of the southern Arizona Tea Party, who refuses to moderate his rhetoric after the THIRD violent incident involving Giffords.
Isn’t that beyond the pale? Or is any criticism of him being unproductive?
Roger: Yes and sadly, yes.
.
I personally don’t see where Palin gets to get off with saying she “didn’t mean anything” by that poster and her rhetoric, after coming out with guns blazing anytime anybody said anything uncomplimentary about her daughter’s dancing on that TV show, as if it were in every case an attack on Sarah personally. Good Lord, woman, if words really do mean that much to you, how is it you fail to understand they might mean something to someone else too?
Er, that should be metaphorical guns blazing – didn’t think that sentence through first…
What do you guys expect? The Right doesn’t know how to apologize anymore. Rush Limbaugh said something that I find to be very true:
.
“I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals.”
.
Personally, I do think this attitude also has its admirable points. I get frustrated that the Liberals in the US often get bogged down in compromise, uncertainty, nuance, moral relativism, and a general lack of balls. Conservatives, on the other hand, are adamant in keeping the appearance of infallibility, even if they harbor doubts personally.
.
Getting them to admit to wrongdoing is expecting too much. Whay we may hope is that, despite the defiant talk, most of them moderate their speech in the future.
how is it you fail to understand they might mean something to someone else too?
.
“Do as I say, not as I do.”
.
Most politicians seem to enjoy that creed, but right now the GOP is reveling in it.
.
And with this incident? They’re basically running with “Don’t blame us for what we said, it’s the shooter’s fault… unless we have the chance to blame liberals.”
.
Holy $&!^…
.
Sarah finally broke her silence to do one of the things he does best and play “poor little me” for her adoring worshippers. But, wow, the stupidity as soon as she opened her mouth just something to behold.
.
She’s been attacked with a “blood libel.”
.
Really Sarah?
.
My first two immediate thoughts were (1) wondering if she actually has the first clue what a “blood libel” actually is and historically means and (2) does she really think she has the moral high ground to say that? Seriously, this idiot woman is going to cry and pout and declare that a blood libel has been placed upon her after the vile garbage and lies she’s spun and repeated about people and about who and what the people she doesn’t like are?
.
Really Sarah? Your first real response isn’t to add anything sane or responsible or to maybe try and address the climate as a whole that you helped create but rather to fall into your standard “pity me” mode and claim that you’re a religious martyr?
Really Sarah?
.
I said back in the thread about her “retreat/reload” that the reactions to her comment were a bit over blown. I’ve said in this thread that out of all of the Republicans and conservatives who have added to the violent rhetoric and the climate of fear and paranoia out there that Sarah Palin was a very poor choice as the poster child for this argument. But now? Screw the lying, whiney, petulant little brat. She’s getting what she deserves from here on out.
Yeah, I tried to post this myself earlier with a link to an article about it, but it apparently was eaten by the web grue.
.
I saw the phrase blood libel, but didn’t really know what it meant. Now that I look it up: umm, wow?
.
She says to take personal responsibility in quoting Reagan (now there’s a case of two people who should never be named in the same sentence), yet she takes no responsibility herself. Instead, she plays follow the leader and blames the shooter and everybody else but herself for this.
.
Apparently her violent rhetoric is just fine, as she has nothing to say about that. She should just put the target map back up on her website and act as if she never took it down, because it’s obvious that she’s going to learn nothing from this anyways.
Again, I’ll point out that this hateful rhetoric is not limited to Giffords:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AowZXHq1
Note: Anthony Miller is a REPUBLICAN official who resigned from his office. (Also note that this is a preliminary report; there may be other facts that could come to light, but it’s still rather unsettling).
This morning in an interview with Good Morning America, a close friend of the miscreant said that Loughner didn’t listen to talk radio or pay attention to the news. It’s beginning to appear all the speculation about the political vitriol is moot in this particular case.
No doubt.
On the other hand, given that this was the third instance of violence involving Rep. Giffords, I still think it’d be a good idea to tone down the rhetoric; it’d be in rather poor taste not to.
Also, given that has a history of people shooting politicians they don’t like, it’s probably an even better idea not to use violent rhetoric.
Which is, once again, beside the point. The point is, and was: When you lace all your rhetoric about your opponents with gun metaphors, you’re leaving yourself open to accusations of being partly responsible when someone then goes and shoots one of those opponents.
.
PAD
Lovely quote from the nation’s best-known Viagra smuggler – Rushbo said:
He’s awfully high on the List of People This Country is Really Better Off Without.
.
Ah, that’s nothing on his latest load of BS and lies.
.
Limbaugh went after Sheriff Dupnik because the Sheriff let Loughner slip through his finger the very morning of the shooting. How? “They” pulled Loughner over for a traffic stop and then just sent him on his way. They just let him go when everyone knows that Sheriff Dupnik knew before the shooting what Loughner had written on the note he had about Giffords.
.
Except that Oxycontin Boy fails to mention that it wasn’t even a Sheriff’s Deputy that made the stop for blowing a traffic light. He also fails to mention that Loughner was described as friendly and cooperative during the stop. So unless Rush is advocating the instant arrest of anyone and everyone who is pulled over for minor traffic violations and is cooperative and polite with the officer then he doesn’t really have much of a point. Well, he could if they were looking for Loughner based on what he had written, but his line about Dupnik (or anyone else for that matter) knowing what was written on those sheets of paper and locked up in the Loughner’s little safe at home is just the typical Rush statement; a complete and total fabrication.
.
I’m sure his fans ate it up.
Going back to the basic point of the thread (that while words have consequences, people generally don’t like facing up to that), I was listening to my iPod earlier, and once again realized that Rush is right:
.
I know you’re different, you know I’m the same
We’re both too busy to be taking the blame
I’d like some changes, but you don’t have the time
We can’t go on thinking it’s a victimless crime
No one is blameless
But we’re all without shame
We fight the fire
While feeding the flames…
.
– Rush, “Second Nature”, Hold Your Fire
Oh, THAT Rush was right. Phew.
.
PAD
Yeah, kind of like the way I was listening to “A Farewell To Kings” a lot during the Bush administration…
The problem with the talking heads is they are so full of their own crap and having people hang on their every word they dont seem to get there are people WHO HANG ON THEIR EVERY WORD.There are people out there who are disturbed and lonely and want to connect to something “greater”.If someone with the influence and fame of say Palin says something they want to believe her,they want to connect with her.So somewhere in their troubled minds is the possibilty that being told ” the liberals want to kill your granny,the evil blacl guy who wasnt born here wants to take you money” sticks in their heads.In an attempt to “connect or help” its not unreasonable to think that one of them may take it to the extreme of trying to murder a politician.Look at the number of abortion doctors who have been threatened or killed by people who believe “they are saving innocent lives”.”They want to kill granny and put us in concentration camps?””Not on my watch!!”
That being said the guy in AZ is a nut job plain and simple.
The thing I feel and believe is that people need to think before they speak.Particular if you are someone with the media access and fame some of these people have .It should never be forgotten how much words can and do influence people.If they didnt we would have no need for political debates and ads.It would be simply here are th candidates ,this is their satance on the issues ,go and vote.
So while Palin isnt directly responsible for this she and others like should choose their words more carefully to insure they are not responsible for something like this in the future
Some folks haven’t gotten the memo: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/d-c-anti-walmart-protesters-plan-march-on-developers-home-with-target-flyer/
.
So they plan on marching on some guy’s home and they print up flyers with his address and crosshairs. These are the same charmers who protested another guy’s home, scaring the bejeebers out of the only person who was there–his teenage son.
.
Oh well, what’s the worst that could happen?
.
(In fairness, the guy in question IS trying to develop a Wal-Mart, so it’s not like he shouldn’t expect mobs with bullhorns showing up in his neighborhood.
.
Ever see the Penn & Teller: Bûllšhìŧ! ep. where they look at the anti-Walmart people? Funny as hëll.
Ah, for the old days when stuff was too expensive for poor people to afford!
Some people will never learn.
Question for anyone who thinks Sarah Palin’s rhetoric and crosshairs on maps, (which Democrats have used as well), etc, are a big deal: Do you also point a finger at liberal Hollywood and its various forms of “violent rhetoric” in movies and on TV? If not, why not? Because it’s “not real”? Crosshairs on a map aren’t from a real gun, either.
And let’s not pretend it’s hard to find “hateful rhetoric” from the Left. Obama himself said if they bring a knife to a fight, we’ll bring a gun, and then told supporters to “get in people’s faces.”
Of course, the most interesting part of the entire Arizona shooting media blitz is how the Left and the media Immediately blamed the Right. And then such irony when Loughner’s friends said he’s a liberal, and it turns out that he’s not a right-wing nutjob, but, if anything, he’s a left-wing nutjob.