PDA

View Full Version : Gabby Giffords has just been shot in the head.



kib
1-8-11, 3:37pm
Arizona's one youngish, female, marginally liberal government representative, and a really nice person to boot, shot down in a public meeting around noon. She was first reported to have been killed, I'm now reading that she may in fact not have died but only be critically wounded ... either way, this is terrible.

dado potato
1-8-11, 3:50pm
NPR reported her killed, but later Reuters stories reported her alive and in surgery. Grievously injured if not asassinated. I hope she makes it through this.

The shooter is in custody. I have no doubt he will pay for his crime... and there will be investigation into who incited him and how he obtained the firearm.

peggy
1-8-11, 3:53pm
Well, I'm just guessing here but, this congresswoman was one of 20 on Sarah Palin's "target map". Remember that? The one with cross hairs on 20 democratic congress persons?

kib
1-8-11, 3:58pm
Yes ... and she'll be just as critically wounded or just as dead. She was the fresh spot in a nauseatingly homogenous sea of republican men, our only democratic AZ representative. I'd be shocked and upset to hear that any of our appointed representatives was attacked in the course of duty, but this is sickening on a political level as well as a human one.

early morning
1-8-11, 3:59pm
OMG- looking for updates - some report her in surgery and hanging in there...

CathyA
1-8-11, 4:57pm
DH heard that she is out of surgery and responsive........but I'm not sure what that means. This is just horrible.

Bastelmutti
1-8-11, 5:10pm
Sadly, it sounds like several people were killed, including a child. Senseless.

loosechickens
1-8-11, 5:32pm
While it's true that this representative was one of the ones singled out on Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" poster, which certainly received heavy criticism for just this kind of reason, that unbalanced individuals might take such things literally and decide to move on their own, there's no evidence that it was connected to this particular guy. At any rate, at this point, Sarah Palin has scrubbed the poster from her SarahPac site, etc.

A look at this guy's MySpace page and You Tube videos certainly shows that this young man has mental issues. This guy has "paranoid schizophrenic" written all over him. And certainly some anti-government sentiment, stuff about the country going off the gold standard, etc., but there is, at least so far, no connection between him and right wing groups, the Tea Party, or any other group, from Right OR Left. Mostly it looks like your ordinary, sad, mentally ill person, who has glommed onto some issues and uses that mentally ill brain to make some very bad decisions. .

The problem with the ugly political atmosphere in our country today is that it is a fertile ground for mentally ill people's ideations to grow and flourish. No matter what side they are on. Way too much talk of "lock and loading", "taking the Second Amendment route to change", etc. And mentally ill people are often not capable of distiguishing between rhetoric and revealed truth, and end up driven to terrible acts.

Just so sad that a small child died as a result of it.

I find myself wondering what they will find when they examine all the people shot. A friend in Tucson said that several of the people who were bystanders were "carrying" (AZ being one of those places where when you go to the grocery store, you see people walking around with sidearms), and when the shooter started, several bystanders pulled THEIR weapons and started shooting, too. None managed to wound or kill the shooter, but may well have caused some "friendly fire" damage of other innocent bystanders.

Zigzagman
1-8-11, 5:34pm
If this incident doesn't speak to "hate mongering" on the airwaves of America, I don't know what will. I'm quite sure that this individual or individuals were not representative of common America but I can tell you personally that I tuned into our AM local radio station and it is pretty much 24/7 hate radio. From 11AM till 3PM everyday they spew their hate speech and then we wonder why incidents like this happen.

Sure hate doesn't have anything to do with it? I think MI-5 warned us about right-wing hate groups last year??

Peace

Poco Pelo
1-8-11, 5:36pm
AS a peace offering, can i offer you Cavenaugh ?
http://immigrationimpact.com/category/uncategorized/immigration-blog/

Zigzagman
1-8-11, 5:42pm
AS a peace offering, can i offer you Cavenaugh

Sorry but I don't have a clue what you are talking about? Cuz - what up?? Rucka Rucka Ali!!

Peace

redfox
1-8-11, 5:42pm
The Youtube vids by the alleged assailant are clearly thought disordered. Combine Palin's incendiary comments and subtle references to using weapons and cross hairs to take people out with the tinder of a mentally ill man, and easy access to guns... this shooting today seems like a logical outcome. Any assault on ANY elected official, regardless of party is an assault on our democracy.

redfox
1-8-11, 5:43pm
http://www.torontomike.com/2011/01/palins_target_map_and_us_rep_g.html

The vile, reprehensible and incendiary Palin crosshairs poster

Poco Pelo
1-8-11, 5:46pm
Sorry but I don't have a clue what you are talking about? Cuz - what up?? Rucka Rucka Ali!!

Peace

take a look now i found something i heard spewing from his mouth yesterday about the 14th admendant

loosechickens
1-8-11, 5:57pm
It's important to be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. One, that the Sarah Palin crosshairs poster WAS reprehensible, and also that we have NO indication that this shooter today was affected in any way from that poster.

This guy is clearly mentally ill. And mentally ill people certainly CAN be affected adversely by these kinds of things, because their faulty minds aren't capable of rational thinking and recognizing that rhetoric need not lead to action.

I don't see any indication that this guy IS a rightwinger, so I don't think we should jump to that conclusion. Heck, at this point, half the people shot and wounded may well have been shot by the "good citizens" who pulled out their own weapons during the emergency, and possibly because of lack of training, and/or nerves, started spraying bullets of their own around.

I just think we don't have enough facts yet to form an opinion that is in any way reliable. we all have our favorite "hobby horses" that emotionally we feel "must" be to blame, but we should wait and allow the facts to lead us, not us lead the facts.....that's all.

Crystal
1-8-11, 6:21pm
So very sad. This is where hate and rhetoric get us. Keeping all concerned, including the 22 year old shooter and his family, in prayer.

Gina
1-8-11, 6:33pm
Seriously, did anyone think that the constant drumbeat of hate coming from some on the right would not result in something like this?

Sure the guy was unbalanced, and sure most people on the far right are sane, and sure there probably are just as many unbalanced on the right as the left, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have foreseen something like this happening.

Ya, right, let's resort to 'second amendment solutions' and 'take back our country'.

18 people shot, 6 now dead....

http://press.take88.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-crosshairs.jpg

Rosemary
1-8-11, 6:57pm
I'm reeling about this, too. She was active in office when we lived in Tucson.
So very sad for all who are impacted by this event.

iris lily
1-8-11, 7:16pm
This is sad and awful. I'm getting tired of tyrants with automatic weapons wreaking havoc in communities.

earthshepherd
1-8-11, 8:56pm
Just appalling. The latest I heard on the news is that six people are dead.

gimmethesimplelife
1-8-11, 8:58pm
This just really sickens me. It is the kind of thing that happens in Juarez or Tijuana with the drug cartels duking it out with each other and with corrupt politiicians and corrupt police. I am not in any way saying that Mexican drug cartels are involved in this, what I am saying is that I keep track of what's going on on the Mexican border on another site, www.borderlandbeat.com, and I often feel some relief that I live on this side of the border as what is going on in Mexico is just unreal. Today, however, I realized there is no reason for me to feel smug, insane random acts of violence can happen here, too, for whatever reason. What can I take positive out of this? I guess to enjoy every day, not to sound paranoid (?) but tomorrow is never guaranteed when you get down to it.....Not that there is any excuse for anyone being shot today, but the death of the child is especially revolting. Rob, concerned Arizonan

ljevtich
1-8-11, 9:25pm
I am saddened by this horrible act. My heart goes out to the families of all concerned.

bae
1-8-11, 9:32pm
I am saddened by this horrible act. My heart goes out to the families of all concerned.

Indeed so.

I'm also sickened by the ghouls rushing in to make political use of the tragedy, before the blood is even dry.

fidgiegirl
1-8-11, 11:55pm
I am relieved to see that House business will be on hiatus until, well, they didn't say until when . . . but the health care bill vote will be delayed and the only business will be related to today. At first I was confused as to why but when you think about it, otherwise, what message is it sending? Just off the Representatives who aren't planning to vote the way you want until it tips how you want it?

The whole thing is so sad . . .

loosechickens
1-9-11, 12:08am
regardless of whether this particular shooter was or was not affected by the overheated rhetoric about "targeting" people in crosshairs in political ads, or talking about "Second Amendment remedies", the general level of anger and hatred expressed in allusions to violence has ratcheted up in recent years, flames fanned by some for their own advantage, etc., and it's not unreasonable to believe that such talk has an effect, especially on those who might have mental or emotional issues.

In his recent campaign against Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman.

He might not be able to see the connection, but an unbalanced person certainly could. Mentally ill people often see connections not so visible to others, and the underlying threats of violence that have overtaken our political discourse is something that we, in this country, really do need to address, if not in this particular case, then in general.

kib
1-9-11, 12:17am
Indeed so.

I'm also sickened by the ghouls rushing in to make political use of the tragedy, before the blood is even dry.

I agree, and hope I haven't come across as one of them. Gabby Giffords is the only congresssperson I have ever had an actual face to face conversation with, I was hugely impressed with both her politics and her willingness to LISTEN to her constituency. I have no idea if the individual who shot her was politically motivated or simply deranged, but I feel like I just lost the only voice in Arizona who was supportive of my POV, the one person who represented the opposing view here. She was a hero of mine, and this feels personal. Whether it was a political incident or not, I suddenly feel unwelcome in my own home.

redfox
1-9-11, 1:50am
The 9 year old who died was a 9/11 baby.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/9-year-old-victim-of-deadly-rampage-identified/

CathyA
1-9-11, 11:17am
Too easy access to guns, too much hate going around, too much craziness.
Haven't heard anything about the "too many guns out there" issue.
And I agree with loosechickens..........all the hate/violent talk out there just HAS to factor into an instable person's perceptions of the world. And there are alot of unstable people out there, with easy access to guns.

dado potato
1-9-11, 12:01pm
People may recall the deaths of John Lennon or William Lennon (Daddy of the Lennon sisters, shot and killed by a deranged stalker in 1969... who had the delusional belief that he was married to Peggy Lennon and that her Daddy was keeping them apart.)

I am sure there are many more examples of a disturbed individual "taking out" a prominent target that is exposed to him.

Crystal
1-9-11, 12:09pm
From Keith Olberman:

"Appearing on a special edition of "Countdown," Olbermann told his audience that "we need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently."

Olbermann continued, "Left, right, middle - politicians and citizens - sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept "targeting" of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended."

He concluded his special comment with this powerful statement, including an apology for his own actions: "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."

CathyA
1-9-11, 2:56pm
Its a tragedy for all the people there who were killed. But the one that gets me the most is the 9 year old girl who was there to experience this because she had just been elected to her student council. :(

Zigzagman
1-9-11, 3:45pm
After seeing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio a few times I thought all of Arizona law enforcement was crazy as a loon but apparently there are a few with a real sense of reality.

On Saturday Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called Arizona "the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Today the sheriff continued on the same theme:
"I think that when the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has impact on people especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with."
He also called his state "the tombstone of the United States of America."
REPORTER: What are your observations about the state of Arizona gun laws in light of what happened?DUPNIK: Well, I think we're the tombstone of the United States of America.... I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that's almost where we are.

screamingflea
1-9-11, 8:46pm
He might not be able to see the connection, but an unbalanced person certainly could. Mentally ill people often see connections not so visible to others, and the underlying threats of violence that have overtaken our political discourse is something that we, in this country, really do need to address, if not in this particular case, then in general.

Loosechickens, I'm not poking you in particular. But before we rush to conclusions about the stability of the suspect or his train of thought leading up to this, lets let the investigators do their jobs. We are not doctors, and even if we were we aren't his doctors, and as such we have no business diagnosing him.

For the record, it needs to be reiterated that people with mental illness are eleven times more likely to be victims (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full) of violent crime than the general population. So please, no stereotyping.

HKPassey
1-9-11, 9:49pm
Loosechickens, I'm not poking you in particular. But before we rush to conclusions about the stability of the suspect or his train of thought leading up to this, lets let the investigators do their jobs. We are not doctors, and even if we were we aren't his doctors, and as such we have no business diagnosing him.

For the record, it needs to be reiterated that people with mental illness are eleven times more likely to be victims (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full) of violent crime than the general population. So please, no stereotyping.

Fair enough. The act itself is deranged, but many causes can push someone over that edge, mental illness being but one.

Sane, troubled, or deranged, no mind is completely immune from the drip, drip, drip of hatred and incitement to violence that have become so common of late. When you poison a well, those weaker sicken more quickly, but everyone suffers eventually. A child - one nationally identified as a symbol of hope for her birth on our day of greatest tragedy, at that - three elderly citizens, a judge and a young man doing his job, all died simply because they sought to take part in our nation's political process. A bright and outspoken representative, the first Jewish woman elected to the House, silenced probably forever even if she lives. Families shattered. Many others injured and traumatized... and innumerable citizens around the country further discouraged from participation in OUR process. All collateral damage stemming from the irresponsible use of inflammatory words and images to push a point of view, under the banner of "free speech." It's time to grow up.

Regardless of political point of view, I hope we can honor the courage and commitment to her constituency shown by Gifford, who continued to vote her conscience despite her expressed concerns over the potentially violent consequences of Palin's imagery. And I hope we can demand some accountability from the open hate-mongers, and the enablers like Palin. "It's nothing to do with us" doesn't cut it, nor do pale, bland statements of sympathy for the victims. What sickened me most of all was the three-word response of one of Palin's supporters (forget the name, sorry) to the news of mass murder: "Mission accomplished, Sarah."

Instead of the "tombstone of our nation," perhaps Arizona can become the tombstone of violent imagery as a political tool, and of the careers of those politicians and pundits who endorse it. I hope so.

HKPassey
1-9-11, 10:06pm
After seeing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio a few times I thought all of Arizona law enforcement was crazy as a loon but apparently there are a few with a real sense of reality.

On Saturday Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called Arizona "the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry." Today the sheriff continued on the same theme:
"I think that when the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has impact on people especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with."
He also called his state "the tombstone of the United States of America."
REPORTER: What are your observations about the state of Arizona gun laws in light of what happened?DUPNIK: Well, I think we're the tombstone of the United States of America.... I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want, and that's almost where we are.


You can only image the emotions behind such a public statement, and the guts required to go on record with this. Whatever else he may be, right now this is a man of honor.

"Arizona" is a name with a lot to live up to, as a symbol of the ultimate sacrifices made to keep our nation free from tyranny - foreign or domestic. What tragic irony if "Arizona" also becomes the symbol for political influence by violence and intimidation.

Alan
1-9-11, 10:07pm
Regardless of political point of view, I hope we can honor the courage and commitment to her constituency shown by Gifford, who continued to vote her conscience despite her expressed concerns over the potentially violent consequences of Palin's imagery. And I hope we can demand some accountability from the open hate-mongers, and the enablers like Palin.

Is there any reason to believe Sarah Palin, or any other person, influenced this young man's actions?
If so, I must have missed it.

Poco Pelo
1-9-11, 10:29pm
me too but i like to watch the fireworks. Personally i think it's the UFOs doing mind control. First the birds now this

Zigzagman
1-9-11, 10:38pm
Incitement to violence? Conspiracy to commit murder? Soliciting a criminal act against a specific individual? Willful disregard? Both Palin, and Angle, have gotten a great deal of press for their violent rhetoric. Both have been warned that their public calls for “second amendment remedies”, and to “don’t retreat, reload” – accompanied by maps with gun-sites directly identifying Congresswoman Giffords, among others – could lead to acts of violence. They were made aware of the potential dangers, and yet they chose to continue on their course. After all, Jared Lee Loughner did pursue Sharron Angles “second amendment remedies” against an elected politician of the opposing party identified with gun-sites on a map distributed publicly by Sarah Palin.

These two people have acted in a way that can be attributed to the cause of the deaths of six individuals, including a federal judge and a young child, as the actions they prescribed – the second amendment remedy against a particularly targeted individual – were being carried out. We must call for an official investigation, subpoenaing of the posts that Palin has scrubbed from her sites, and any other relevant material from all connected parties, and exercise the power of the American judicial system.

Peace

Dharma Bum
1-9-11, 10:48pm
These two people have acted in a way that can be attributed to the cause of the deaths of six individuals

Zig, so far the evidence reveals only that he was an anti-religious pot smoker. Surely you don't want to crack down on them just because this nut commited a horrible act. This may be an appropriate time for reflection on the political climate regardless of his background, but it is disrespectful to those that died to turn this tragedy into political opportunism. Let the facts come out in a rational discussion before we start blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine.

peggy
1-9-11, 10:50pm
Is there any reason to believe Sarah Palin, or any other person, influenced this young man's actions?
If so, I must have missed it.

Wow! What a callous, ignoble insult to the dead and injured!

Zigzagman
1-9-11, 10:56pm
OK, Let's give him a blood test and see if he was under the influence of POT? Now that would be so typical.:confused:

How can political figures make such inflammatory statements and then when it happens deny any culpability? Do we only enforce the "rule of law" on those without power or influence? Is "hate speech" guaranteed by the first amendment? Time to say enough is enough!

Peace

loosechickens
1-10-11, 12:12am
screamingflea.....I agree completely. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not a danger to others, and in fact, as you pointed out, far more likely to be victims of crimes against them, than to be perpetrators of crimes against others.

And it is also right not to jump to conclusions about this young man. From looking over the postings he made on the internet on his MySpace page and in other locations, such as on You Tube, which were confused, rambling and incoherent, it does seem as though some mental issues may be involved, especially since school authorities refused to allow him to return to school until he underwent psychiatric evaluation, and classmates said that he interrupted classes with irrational tirades and comments, etc., all of which bear similarity to someone suffering from a problem like schizophrenia, commonly arising in the teens and early twenties.

But whether mental issues contributed to his committing this crime, we shall have to wait and see. I agree with you. We don't know that, any more than we know whether or not he was influenced by rightwing radio, bullseyes placed on Rep. Giffords, the uproar in AZ about immigration, etc. It's human to want to find an explanation. We hate to think these things can happen, and always tend to look for reasons, and sometimes we just can't know.

I do know that the inflammatory rhetoric in recent years, the veiled and not so veiled threats of violence, the demonization of people who do not share a particular political view, portrayal of them as someone who hates their country, etc., is not good for any of us. And especially not good for those who might be in a fragile state of mind and overly influenced by those messages. Irrespective of this particular case. Hopefully, this is a wakeup call, although we've had several before, without anything changing.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-10-11, 2:34am
Robust political debate is essential in a mature democracy. However, as an overseas observer, I have been appalled by the level and tone of some political debate in the US. The level of mendacity, misrepresentation and personal abuse particularly from the Right seems to make the likelihood of violence a certainty. I do not know the exact details of this incident but I hope it causes Fox News and their ilk to pause and think before indulging in rhetoric that is little more than rabble rousing.

redfox
1-10-11, 2:45am
Thanks you, Eggs & Shrubs. Many of us in the US are hoping for the same.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-10-11, 5:57am
Thanks you, Eggs & Shrubs. Many of us in the US are hoping for the same.

No problem. I gladly exclude all posters on here, of whatever political leanings, from my criticism.

My morning paper has just been delivered and a stunning photo of the murdered girl is on the front page. She was achingly beautiful and full of potential. The two words "tragic waste" do not even begin to describe this dreadful incident.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-10-11, 6:04am
This is sad and awful. I'm getting tired of tyrants with automatic weapons wreaking havoc in communities.

I know I'm in danger of being told to mind my own business but here goes!

Political violence is not unique to the US. An MP in the UK was attacked recently by a woman with a sword. The MP was seriously injured but recovered and no other person was injured. The woman would have caused havoc with a firearm.

Isn't it about time the US looked at limiting firearm ownership?

goldensmom
1-10-11, 6:22am
My condolences go to the families of all of the victims of this tragedy. I wish that the actions of individuals such as this assassin could be predicted and avoided (Minority Report) but as history shows it cannot. A person bent on evil will usually succeed, no law can stop them and that is tragic.

Dharma Bum
1-10-11, 7:31am
Isn't it about time the US looked at limiting firearm ownership?

Despite the tempest over the political angle on this tragedy, this is actually the harder issue to deal with- how to balance rights against risks. This guy had a long history of disturbing behavior, including behavior that many thought was threatening and evidence of mental problems, but because he had never crossed a certain threshhold previously he was still eligible to buy a gun legally. To fix that in the future we would have to give the government the right to preemptively deny people their rights based on the govt's opinion of the citizen. That would not go over well here, nor would a larger ban based on the despicable acts of a few derranged people.

Although the Congresswoman was a high profile target, the actual mechanics of this event are very similar to other shootings. IL misstates the issue slightly, there was no automatic weapon involved here, just an average handgun. Many workplace shootings end the same way each year. Although this event is high profile, I think many people who's loved ones die in one of the other many events of this kind feel their loss is just as great.

But I doubt anything will change on the gun ownership rules and this will be a recurring issue. If there is an answer it probably lies in more aggressive intervention with people who exhibit mental problems, but that raises a whole other set of problems as to the interference with their rights when they have not yet broken the law.

Alan
1-10-11, 7:49am
Wow! What a callous, ignoble insult to the dead and injured!
Callous and ignoble? By what standard?
Have we reached the point where it is only compassionate and noble to blame political rivals for every random act of violence?

Yesterday, when asked if he had any evidence to support his supposition that this young man was influenced by any talking heads in politics or media, Sheriff Dupnik admitted that he did not. Is it wrong to ask if anyone else has evidence to support their suppositions?

I would certainly hope not.

CathyA
1-10-11, 7:54am
EggsandShrubs..........I agree with you about limiting gun ownership. But unfortunately, the U.S. seems to have become a nation where individual rights are more important than the good of the whole. :(

Eggs and Shrubs
1-10-11, 8:51am
Callous and ignoble? By what standard?
Have we reached the point where it is only compassionate and noble to blame political rivals for every random act of violence?

Yesterday, when asked if he had any evidence to support his supposition that this young man was influenced by any talking heads in politics or media, Sheriff Dupnik admitted that he did not. Is it wrong to ask if anyone else has evidence to support their suppositions?

I would certainly hope not.

Do you honestly believe this event is a "random act of violence"? Would he have targetted, say, a Flower Arranging meeting being held in the same venue?

The connection between rhetoric and Saturday's events are not causal but contextual. The shooter was not likely to be acting under direct instructions but in an atmosphere that made such an attack more likely rather than less. Whatever his motives, this was a targetted act of domestic political violence, and that scenario was not only predictable but widely predicted.

peggy
1-10-11, 8:52am
Callous and ignoble? By what standard?
Have we reached the point where it is only compassionate and noble to blame political rivals for every random act of violence?

Yesterday, when asked if he had any evidence to support his supposition that this young man was influenced by any talking heads in politics or media, Sheriff Dupnik admitted that he did not. Is it wrong to ask if anyone else has evidence to support their suppositions?

I would certainly hope not.

OK Alan, here's where the insult part comes in. You act as if people are using this tragedy as an opportunity to randomly pull baseless accusations out of their butts just to score political points. And I can certainly see why you say that. After all that's the talking point on Fox, a network devoted to demonizing the left.

Not only is this an insult to those killed and injured, but it's an insult to our intelligence. Can you REALLY not think of ANY reason this nut job might think that the government is EVIL, and democrats HATE America and are trying to DESTROY everything good and noble about this country? Can you REALLY not think of ANYONE who devotes their life and airtime to saying this OVER AND OVER AND OVER? Can we not think of ANY network that devotes 24/7 to this kind of hate rhetoric against democrats/liberals? Anyone Alan, ANYONE? Did you think we wouldn't notice? Do you think the families of the dead and injured haven't noticed? In the name of PC are they supposed to just ignore the fact that a powerful political figure put a poster on her website with cross-hairs on their loved one's heads? Gee, don't' you just LOVE how "fair and balanced" the right becomes when the blood is on their hands.

Well, Sarah scrubbed her website (and she's just ignorant enough to think that will do it!) and all the right-wing pundits and politicians are tripping over themselves to assure us some of their best friends are democrats. So of course they are all absolved of anything they may have said. And of course they were only KIDDING when they talked about 2nd amendment solutions and "reloading".

You say we are playing politics by pointing these obvious things out. But what about the folks who used and endangered these people's LIVES by this hate speech and demonizing and 'target' posters? What game are THEY playing Alan?

Why is it we don't yell fire in a crowded theatre?
Cause people tend to believe it!

Eggs and Shrubs
1-10-11, 8:56am
Excellent post Peggy.

I only read the British press but there seems to be an element of the political Right seeking to make themselves the victims in all of this. I will readily withdraw this observation if it is incorrect.

Gregg
1-10-11, 10:19am
Here in Nebraska, where the weather and the price of corn are the most common topics of conversation, we are dealing with a high school senior who walked into his school, shot two administrators (one of whom died) and then killed himself. In my community there is a pretty strong understanding that the young man was troubled to the point that there were signs tragic behavior was a possibility. None of us caught those signs in time. We are working with the schools so all of us can learn to identify some of those and help avert the next tragedy.

To blame political sites or video games or gun laws or the phase of the moon is just wrong. Any person who would commit this crime against others needs help. It is NEVER the action that would be chosen by a person who's logical and moral faculties are fully in tact. The rest of us need to be able to better identify those people who are losing touch with reality and have a mechanism in place to help them. We also need to grow up and realize that it is not possible to stop everyone bent on doing harm. Just like in any other situation people can and should pay attention to what is going on around them. Nanny can't protect you from every lightning bolt, but YOU CAN get yourself out of the way of most of them. The young man who pulled the trigger apparently needed help and didn't get it. The loss of innocent lives is tragic. The twisting of this story by BOTH sides of the political spectrum in and through the media is sickening.

Alan
1-10-11, 10:44am
The DNC's, "Target for Democratic Gains" circa 2004.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif (http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page in 2010.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-graphic.jpg

Is it always reprehensible, or just sometimes?

Dharma Bum
1-10-11, 10:53am
You act as if people are using this tragedy as an opportunity to randomly pull baseless accusations out of their butts just to score political points.

So far that would appear to be exactly what's happening. And it's a shame. Maybe it works out that there is some basis for those accusations, at which point criticism will be warranted, but until then it is either just a lack of critical thinking or political opportunism that is driving the commentary.


Maybe a separate thread, but fifty years ago or it was much easier to crack down on people with psychiatric problems but the courts stepped in to make that harder. If you are willing to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners on the chance one may do some harm, are you similarly going to advocate restricting the rights of law abiding people with mental problems on the chance one may do harm?

I'm sure you could make a long list but the first one that comes to mind is the VA Tech shooter. Add Gregg's local tragedy too. There is a significant amount of serious psychiatric issues that can develop in late adolescence. Is there more that can be done to catch this without being overly broad and yanking kids out of school just because they draw satanic images or write dark stories in their notebooks?

iris lily
1-10-11, 11:08am
My friend in the U.K., each and every day some legislative body somewhere here in the U.S.A. is handling a proposal to further "limit" firearms. Your broad statement implies that we have no limits. On and on and on the attempts to further "limit" them go.

That is why you see so much action from those who defend firearm rights--it's a constant push-back.

It's always trying to get a balance between owners' rights and community safety. No one wants unstable people to have bg weapons. But who decides who is worthy of gun ownership and how do you institutionalize that?

Please know that Gabby Giffords herself would probably be in opposition to your idea of "limiting firearm ownership" if by that you mean complete removal from the populace. That's just naive, sorry! She herself owns a gun*


*Giffords' letter to a constituent:

June 5, 2009

Dear Mr. Mendenhall,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing from you. As a gun owner, I support the Constitutional right-and Arizona tradition-of owning firearms.

H.R. 45 is too restrictive and impinges upon our 2nd Amendment Rights. While this bill goes too far, I support reasonable and responsible measures to conduct background checks on firearms sales by private citizens at events like gun shows. I believe we have to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people who are mentally unstable while allowing all others to legally purchase and use firearms.etc
full text here:
http://tinyurl.com/4g2ool5

iris lily
1-10-11, 11:14am
The shooter visited Gabby Giffords in 2007. He was obsessed with "the government" and she was his representative. My gues sis that whtether Tea PArty or liberal (and she was neither) he would have acted.

Zigzagman
1-10-11, 11:38am
It is clear to me that there is hope from some that the explanation of the event will be one of a deranged man with no political agenda, or a troubled young man who had warning signs that weren't recognized. This will allow those who have supported the environment that creates these tragedies to continue without challenge. I do not buy it.

Easy Access to Guns + The Gutting of Mental Health Services + A Culture of Violence + The Rhetoric of Anti-Government = Tragedy

As to his having no political agenda.....he chose a political event and a political figure. There are more than a few hints that he took inspiration from fringe movements.

Still, it is the right which has poured the most fuel on the partisan fires in the last two years and Arizona has been one of those places where the bonfire has burned the brightest.

Our society is resembling "Brave New World" more everyday.

Peace

Elledille
1-10-11, 11:41am
Is it always reprehensible, or just sometimes?

Nope, it's reprehensible no matter who does it. I remember being very upset by some of the signs carried by fellow Iraq-war protesters way back in 2003. They equated Bush with Hitler, just like some Tea Partiers allegedly equated Obama with Hitler. It's counterproductive and, frankly, stupid, no matter which side does it.

One can split hairs and argue that Palin takes the democratic map a step further, since her map was part of a much broader discourse that frequently employed references to guns and gun violence.

A more disturbing example of the rhetorical linkage between violence and politics than Palin's map was provided Giffords' opponent in the 2010 election, Jesse Kelly. He is described in an NPR article (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132784957/shooting-fallout-political-rhetoric-takes-the-heat) as doing the following:


Giffords narrowly won a third term in November against Jesse Kelly, a Republican backed by the Tea Party. Last June, Kelly held an event promoted with the message: "Get on Target for Victory in November ... Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office ... Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

I don't think Palin is directly responsible for this shooting. I don't even think Kelly is directly responsible. But there's no question that putting an M16 in the hands of supporters while encouraging them to "remove" Giffords from office is creating a conceptual link that we just don't need in our society. If a person running for federal office is willing to step that close to the ethical line, it's no wonder that a disenfranchised, confused young person is willing to cross it.

peggy
1-10-11, 11:57am
The DNC's, "Target for Democratic Gains" circa 2004.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif (http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page in 2010.

http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/palin-graphic.jpg

Is it always reprehensible, or just sometimes?

There is a difference between targeting a political state, and targeting people and you know that. You left off from Sarah's target map the list, naming names, of the "targets". You also left off the diatribe that accompanied the map where this loonie woman called the health care reforms an overthrow of government by the left.
Again, to deny the flood of hate speech coming from the right, to say it doesn't happen or really mean anything is an insult.

Of course this guy was a nut. No one is saying Sarah Palin was in direct contact with him, and to try to twist the discussion into this is a straw man.
This isn't a political discussion. I know you are trying to make it that because the darling of the right-wing is one of the constant voices that uses violent language and imagery whenever she talks about her opponent. But when prominent political leaders use this kind of language and violent imagery, and we don't call them on it, it legitimizes it.

Think about it Alan. Did you ever in your wildest dreams think people would go to political rallies armed? In America? Well it happened in this last election cycle. And it wasn't liberals who were carrying was it. Weapons, guns, at political rallies in our country. And everyone on the right, and the right leaning on this forum, though it was just fine and dandy. People just exercising their rights. Now add a charismatic political leader like Palin, or Limbaugh or Beck, or a dozen other tea party/republican politicians from across the country standing on that podium, whipping everyone up into a frenzy, talking about reloading, and 2nd amendment solutions, and civil war, and pointing to democrats/liberals as not just political enemies, but enemies of America, and god and all that's good and decent in this country.
Now, I'm sure this disturbed young man was just exercising his rights. How many more are out there, carrying guns to political rallies, exercising their rights, getting whipped up into a froth by demonizing speech.
NO, Palin didn't tell this guy to go on a shooting spree, but she encouraged and legitimize his deranged thoughts. Crazy people think others are going to over throw their government, or already have. Crazy people think someone is out to get them. Crazy people think there is a conspiracy of evil in our political leaders.
Sarah and the other prominent hate mongers didn't tell him to shoot. They just showed him who to shoot.

peggy
1-10-11, 12:03pm
It is clear to me that there is hope from some that the explanation of the event will be one of a deranged man with no political agenda, or a troubled young man who had warning signs that weren't recognized. This will allow those who have supported the environment that creates these tragedies to continue without challenge. I do not buy it.

Easy Access to Guns + The Gutting of Mental Health Services + A Culture of Violence + The Rhetoric of Anti-Government = Tragedy

As to his having no political agenda.....he chose a political event and a political figure. There are more than a few hints that he took inspiration from fringe movements.

Still, it is the right which has poured the most fuel on the partisan fires in the last two years and Arizona has been one of those places where the bonfire has burned the brightest.

Our society is resembling "Brave New World" more everyday.

Peace

Very well said zig.

Alan
1-10-11, 12:29pm
Sarah and the other prominent hate mongers didn't tell him to shoot. They just showed him who to shoot.


Except in this case, the shooter was in contact with his primary victim since at least August, 2007. That leads me to believe that she was a subject of his fixation well before most of America had ever heard of Sarah Palin and certainly before there was a Tea Party.

This act of violence is certainly tragic. I just don't agree with the kneejerk 'cause and effect' so many are implying, especially without evidence.



Think about it Alan. Did you ever in your wildest dreams think people would go to political rallies armed?


There are many restrictions on the public's ability to carry weapons in public. Political rallies are not included in those restrictions.
If a person breaks no laws, who's to say that exercising a right in that particular venue is not appropriate?

DocHilliday
1-10-11, 12:49pm
What sickened me most of all was the three-word response of one of Palin's supporters (forget the name, sorry) to the news of mass murder: "Mission accomplished, Sarah."

The "Mission accomplished, Sarah." quote came from leftist website founder Markos Moulitas. (hardly a Palin supporter) You'll have to ask him what his meaning was...

DocHilliday
1-10-11, 12:56pm
What's funny about the brouhaha about "targeting" opponents, is that Giffords was "bullseyed" for a primary opponent by one of the leftist websites because apparently she wasn't enough of a "true believer". That same site a couple of days prior to the shooting had one of their commentators announce that Giffords was "dead to me" because she had the audacity to vote against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader...

It's all manufactured outrage...

bae
1-10-11, 1:15pm
There are many restrictions on the public's ability to carry weapons in public. Political rallies are not included in those restrictions.
If a person breaks no laws, who's to say that exercising a right in that particular venue is not appropriate?

I have legally carried a firearm to almost every public gathering or event I've been to for the past 20+ years. I thought it was quite appropriate to do so, which is why I went to the bother. Then again, I don't attribute strange fetishistic properties to firearms, they are just tools. They don't commit violence on their own, not do they magically protect their owners from harm on their own.

bae
1-10-11, 1:21pm
That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

The comment drew some laughs and applause. But it also struck a chord with his Republican rival. John McCain’s campaign immediately accused the Democratic candidate of playing the politics of fear.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Alan
1-10-11, 1:32pm
I have legally carried a firearm to almost every public gathering or event I've been to for the past 20+ years. I thought it was quite appropriate to do so, which is why I went to the bother. Then again, I don't attribute strange fetishistic properties to firearms, they are just tools. They don't commit violence on their own, not do they magically protect their owners from harm on their own.
I've done the same since 1973. By my reckoning, in all that time, no one has been killed, injured or alarmed as a result.

loosechickens
1-10-11, 2:35pm
We're accustomed, since we spend lots of time in places like AZ, to seeing people wearing sidearms, but honestly, if you think you look perfectly normal doing so, and are not seen as having something of a gun fetish, you're living in your own world. Even in places like AZ, the huge majority of people do not "openly carry", although in the last several years, it has become more noticeable among a certain group of people. It is NOT a usual thing to walk around in ordinary life packing heat unless you're a law enforcement officer or a gun person "making a statement" in the U.S.,. Sorry.

Your perception of what you're doing, and the perception of the people around you may well be quite different. To many of them, you may well be "that gun nut who's always showing up bristling with weaponry".

I am assuming that you're not talking about being a rancher wearing a sidearm in case of rattlesnakes, but of walking around in the grocery store, attending an ordinary event, etc. where you are in groups of people doing ordinary things like shopping, eating in a restaurant, listening to music, visiting, etc.

I agree, if you're not mentally unbalanced, drink a lot or have a bad temper, you're probably no danger to anyone around you. But you may well look a bit odd to most. JMHO

bae
1-10-11, 2:51pm
Why did you assume I was walking around with a visible firearm? While that is quite legal here, it's not the wisest course of action - it offers you up as a target, reduces your response options, and produces anxiety amongst a certain class of citizen. Carrying your weapons nicely concealed is generally preferable.

I do on occasion carry openly - when in the field hunt, or when working in the woods or fields. Or at certain sorts of shooting competitions.

loosechickens
1-10-11, 3:22pm
because what had been under discussion was people showing up at political rallies bearing visible sidearms.

I agree, bae, "open carry" reduces your response options, makes most people uncomfortable, makes criminals see you as a nice source of armament, and under most circumstances of daily life, makes you look somewhat ridiculous. But, boy, a "certain class of citizen" just can't resist doing so. I'm glad you're not among their number.

Alan
1-10-11, 3:24pm
We're accustomed, since we spend lots of times in places like AZ, to seeing people wearing sidearms, but honestly, if you think you look perfectly normal doing so, and are not seen as having something of a gun fetish, you're living in your own world.

If you're referring to me, I am neither a gun fetishist nor am I living in my own world.
I have enjoyed a career in which concealed carry is the norm and have literally spent years never leaving home without it. In all that time, no one has had the ability to look down their nose or think poorly of me. Think 'out of sight, out of mind.'

loosechickens
1-10-11, 3:38pm
We're talking about people showing up at political rallies, openly strutting around wearing their sidearms, making a statement. We're talking about the people you see in Arizona and some other places, (the same people, generally), who can be seen out and about, with their sidearms strapped on, sometimes carrying several weapons out in the open, ankle holsters, the whole nine yards.

Heck, back in the day, in NJ, even the mob guys had shoulder holsters and only a slight bulge under their suit coats.

I'd hope that neither you nor Bae would be the kind of people who would be making the kind of spectacle of yourselves as has become somewhat common to see in places like AZ.

Alan
1-10-11, 3:48pm
I guess 'spectacle' is in the eyes of the beholder. Many people consider weapons to be a threat, but they are mistaken. A weapon is a tool that, when used correctly, provides security from a real threat.

If only there had been one or two armed citizens at the rally in Tucson the other day. Perhaps things would have ended differently and you might have a different opinion of them.

bae
1-10-11, 4:09pm
because what had been under discussion was people showing up at political rallies bearing visible sidearms.


Perhaps there are multiple discussions going on. In the post I responded to, and the post it was in response to, there was no mention of openly carrying arms.

LDAHL
1-10-11, 5:42pm
It's interesting how reactions are colored by preconceptions. In some, you see a sort of reflexive urge to blood-libel people they dislike. If the assassin had done the deed shouting "Allah Akbar", the same folks would be sermonizing about not directing any anger against Muslims rather than wave the bloody shirt. Mrs. Palin may or may not have been in Jared Loughner's head, but she certainly seems to have acquired a lot of real estate in the collective minds of the Left.

bae
1-10-11, 6:47pm
Federal District Court Judge John Roll was also killed in this terrible attack. I see only vague mention of this fact in the political posturing in this thread.

Judge Roll was appointed by Pres. George HW Bush, upon the recommendation of John McCain. He was a pretty conservative judge, a dedicated Catholic, a devoted father of three, who along with his family had faced hundreds of death threats recently.

Dharma Bum
1-10-11, 8:01pm
I only read the British press

Some of which has it right:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shootings-How-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html

The Tea Party leaders have been rushing to condemn the shooting and distance themselves from the gunman.

Whether they should really have to do so is another matter. The reality is that there is as yet no evidence that the political Right, and the Tea Party in *particular, has — as its opponents say — ‘blood on its hands’ over the Tucson murders.

While some liberals have slyly implied that Loughner was a Tea Party supporter, former classmates remember him as being ‘Left-wing’ and ‘liberal’. Another said he was ‘on his own planet’, which seems nearer the mark. No existing political organisation - including the Tea Party - comes close to championing Lough-ner’s deranged world view.
Paranoid and nihilistic (he kept a miniature altar with a replica human skull in his backyard), he had clearly surfed the wilder shores of political views on the internet, preaching about the evils of religion, and even picking up and espousing a theory that the government was using grammar as a form of mind control.

History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins. John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers. Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.

But those lessons from *history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.

Lainey
1-10-11, 9:03pm
I know this is premature, and even awful to think about, but what's the protocol for a representative who is most likely going to be unable to carry out her duties in the short-term and maybe even long-term? Even best case scenario I think we're talking months for rehab.
Does the governor get to appoint someone in her place?

The Storyteller
1-10-11, 10:41pm
All I know is as soon as I saw that an Arizona representative of Congress was shot, without any other information, I knew it was a Democrat.

BTW from Glenn Beck's website today...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/235927/GLENN-BECK.jpg

The problem with web site random image generators.

redfox
1-10-11, 10:59pm
Ya know, regardless of the political persuasion of the alleged assailant, it is a darn good time to have a country wide convo about public speech.

HKPassey
1-10-11, 11:29pm
produces anxiety amongst a certain class of citizen.

i.e., everybody else.

loosechickens
1-10-11, 11:46pm
Ya know, regardless of the political persuasion of the alleged assailant, it is a darn good time to have a country wide convo about public speech.

Yes.......regardless of whether or not this particular shooter was influenced by rhetoric, or others, or ones in the future.....it can't be good for our country to have people portraying others who do not share their political philosophy as someone who is "trying to destroy our country", "someone who doesn't love their country", and "someone who needs to be destroyed", etc. Somehow, we have got to get back to the situation where we can recognize that people can see any given political issue from differing, but valid viewpoints, and our job is to find a way to compromise, work together, solve the problems our country faces and live together with some degree of civility, without hate speech, attempts to gin up fears of "the other", etc.

Jon Stewart said something tonight that really resonated with me. As he said, no one can know at this point what exactly motivated this young man, or if he was in a mental state where his motivations were irrational, but one point of brightness in all of it was that even the people whose rhetoric spoke of violence, and veiled and not so veiled threats, when they were faced with the actuality of what that spilled blood actually looked like in reality, were as horrifed as anyone else. As he said, let us hope that we never lose that ability to be horrified when the violent speech becomes reality, (I'm paraphrasing, but hope I got the gist of what he meant).

It's easy to throw around words about "destroying" a political opponent, etc., but the reality of watching that destruction, should give all of us pause. And that is irregardless of whether this particular shooter was left/right/center/or just plain irrational. The blood that was spilled was that of Democrats, Republicans and a little child. While we're still in the throes of the horror of what the actuality of violence means, really IS a good time to consider rethinking our national discourse and attitudes toward each other.

I don't think that's jumping on a political bandwagon. I think it's just saying that we ordinary people in the middle are absolutely SICK at the progression these last few years have taken.

bae
1-11-11, 12:01am
i.e., everybody else.

Nope.

redfox
1-11-11, 12:22am
Yes, yes, yes, Loosechickens.

Bootsie
1-11-11, 12:23am
Ya know, regardless of the political persuasion of the alleged assailant, it is a darn good time to have a country wide convo about public speech.

Absolutely! And also it's a darn good time to examine our own private speech and tolerance.

ApatheticNoMore
1-11-11, 2:56am
Mrs. Palin may or may not have been in Jared Loughner's head, but she certainly seems to have acquired a lot of real estate in the collective minds of the Left.

Media buzz: The murder commited by Jared Loughner was inspired by the confrontational political rhetoric we have these days ...
Collecting my thoughts: we have confrontational political rhetoric? It seems to me it's not confrontational enough! Obama has committed all the sins of Bush W and gets away with it!
Media buzz: the confrontational political rhetoric of right wing radio ...
Me: OH ..... I almost forgot right wing radio existed, wait it is there in my memory banks somewhere ... with the memory of what I wore to high school graduation I think ... it's coming back. Ah yes, there it is.

Doing a little digging ... wait a second there isn't much to point to this guy being influenced by current day right wing rhetoric at all (not that I'd regard it as meaningful if he was), but really there's pretty much nothing there. Reading choices all over the map, asking bizarre out of nowhere philosophical questions. And completely and utterly insane. He could almost fit the archetype of someone completely and utterly deranged by literature, philosophy, and other books (what no Dostoevsky on his reading list?). But this is speculation. Mostly he was just nuts.

redfox
1-11-11, 3:47am
Mrs. Palin may or may not have been in Jared Loughner's head, but she certainly seems to have acquired a lot of real estate in the collective minds of the Left.

Wow, what a confusing comment - and rather condescending in tone. Is this your way of inviting dialogue? I've never been a fan of anyone purporting to "know" what others are thinking or doing. I'm much more interested in what your own thoughts and experiences are.

Speaking as someone with her politics way to the left of center, Palin horrifies me because she uses the bully pulpit to say disrespectful, mean, and ugly things about and to others. What horrifies me even more is how much air time she actually gets. She is a venal and nasty public figure. I have no idea how she is in private.

I look forward to the day her vitriol dries up and disappears from the public square. It's time to reinvigorate what civil means in civil discourse.

LDAHL
1-11-11, 9:10am
Wow, what a confusing comment - and rather condescending in tone. Is this your way of inviting dialogue? I've never been a fan of anyone purporting to "know" what others are thinking or doing. I'm much more interested in what your own thoughts and experiences are.

Speaking as someone with her politics way to the left of center, Palin horrifies me because she uses the bully pulpit to say disrespectful, mean, and ugly things about and to others. What horrifies me even more is how much air time she actually gets. She is a venal and nasty public figure. I have no idea how she is in private.

I look forward to the day her vitriol dries up and disappears from the public square. It's time to reinvigorate what civil means in civil discourse.


At this point in her gaudy career, Mrs. Palin strikes me as more a creation of the Left than the Right. Look how quickly and fervently prominent portside pundits insisted on making her an accomplice to the acts of an incoherent lunatic. No evidence required, just demonize her on the pretext of protesting against demonizing opponents. But she apparently fulfills some sort of need for an evil archetype in their narrative, so her enemies will keep her profile and speaking fees high.
Based on the last election, she is a spent force, and perhaps even an embarrassment in conservative circles. If not for the reflexive hatred she inspires on the left, she would be relegated to the basic cable sideshow tent. If you truly want her out of the "public square", all you need to do is ignore her.

Gregg
1-11-11, 9:56am
Just one poster’s opinion, but aside from the timely exploration of firearm issues this may be the most obscene thread to hit the forum in years. So much finger-pointing, but with hardly a mention of how repugnant it is for anyone, ANYONE, to twist tragedy for political gain. And you know what’s worse? I pretty much expect to hear justification along the lines of “well, everybody else does it” from all sides. So sad and so #$@% sick.

I watched FOX for a while yesterday for the first time in a year or two, just to see what was said. What I heard there wasn’t any worse than what I heard on the Today show. How’s that for justification? I actually found CNN to be more deeply involved in the hate mongering business regarding the AZ shootings, but y’all watch both for a while and let me know what you think.

Sarah Palin is a charismatic figure that was originally brought to light by the Republican party. Since then the left leaning media (read: most of the media) has hung on her every word. They’re waiting for the next clothing bill or the next made-up-word or the next gaff of some kind, just like the part of NASCAR fans that wait to see a crash. Whether it’s intentional or not, Sarah makes sure the next crash is right around the corner. Keep ‘em coming back for more! Ms. Palin was “created” by the right, but would have met a sudden (political) end without the left. I doubt the GOP leadership could in their wildest dreams imagine a better scenario.

ApatheticNoMore
1-11-11, 11:42am
The thing is I have a very hard time paying attention to Sarah Palin and Glen Beck etc. because stupid people are boring. I tend not to use that term lightly, but look who we're talking about (Sarah Palin, Glen Beck ...), I mean really am I supposed to comb THEIR thoughts for insight? If the left gets called liberal elitist I want to at least actually BE ELITIST enough to ignore teh stupid.

goldensmom
1-11-11, 11:48am
I am amazed at how this thread has become a 'bash Sarah Palin' thread because it didn't start out that way. I am amazed at how much power people attribute to her, that she can get inside the head of a mentally ill (per news reports) person and cause that person to commit an evil act. If the news media would leave it alone, I’m with LDAHL, ignore her and she will go away. Now, that sounds like I am blaming the news media…..I guess someone had to be to blame, certainly not the individual.

Point to ponder, who was the evil power inside Mark David Chapman’s head?

Zigzagman
1-11-11, 12:09pm
I think the point of Sarah Palin being connected to this incident is this -

No one doubts that Jared Loughner has issues but when you have public rethoric that focuses on political figures with the intent of motivating removing them from office, it provides validation online for whatever moods, desires or hatreds they may have, and the mixture is deadly. Then add rhetoric that include "2nd Amendment solutions" and "Don't retreat, Reload", I think it could and should be considered - going too far. I really do believe that rhetoric matters.

Admittedly, I think Palin is nuts but I also think her actions and others like her should be admonished for their actions.

Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men. - Plato

Peace

Alan
1-11-11, 12:10pm
I am amazed at how much power people attribute to her, that she can get inside the head of a mentally ill (per news reports) person and cause that person to commit an evil act.

There is no evidence that she, or anyone else, has had any influence on the shooter. That's why all this is so troubling. It's just mean spirited, political gamesmanship.
Not surprising, but sad nonetheless.

KayLR
1-11-11, 12:25pm
"Right now, we need some sustained spiritual reflection on how badly we have behaved in recent years as Americans--how much we've allowed fear to motivate our politics, how cruel we've allowed our discourse to become, how little we've listened, how much we've dehumanized public servants, how much we hate."
---Diana Butler Bass, author, Jan. 8, 2010. http://blog.beliefnet.com/christianityfortherestofus/2011/01

mtnlaurel
1-11-11, 12:32pm
My comments are on the Palin strain of this thread. And you can add me to the Palin bashing crowd - and I'm not too much of a Lefty. I probably should start a new thread, but I'm going to leave it here.

I am heart sick about what happened this past weekend. And to read about the victims just makes me cry.
We lost the best of Americans this weekend - ones that would give up their weekend time to participate in the political process
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981099/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
And for ANYONE to fear for their lives when attending ANY KIND of political event - that is an assault on ALL OF US - no matter where we fall on the political spectrum.

I don't think that it's seeking political gain to want to openly discuss the tenor of political discourse in this instance.
When a public figure puts out a poster with elected officals names next to crosshairs and then thinks people aren't going to talk about it when one of them IS shot... now that's delusional.
That poster was figurative. But less than a year later, it sure does look even more irresponsible now.

I don't think that specific political poster had any direct impact on the events of this past weekend - but I still think the fact that the crosshairs poster exists and wasn't dismissed more at the time by the people that are elected by SarahPACs followers is worth talking about.


Sarah Palin is a charismatic figure that was originally brought to light by the Republican party.
Not only was Palin 'brought to light' by the Republican Party ..... She was picked over much more qualified candidates to be the possible 2nd in Command of the United States of America.
A charismatic figure is someone you invite to give speeches, not be second in line to run the country.

I know a lot of people who were going to vote for McCain until he brought Palin on board.


At this point in her gaudy career, Mrs. Palin strikes me as more a creation of the Left than the Right. Look how quickly and fervently prominent portside pundits insisted on making her an accomplice to the acts of an incoherent lunatic. No evidence required, just demonize her on the pretext of protesting against demonizing opponents. But she apparently fulfills some sort of need for an evil archetype in their narrative, so her enemies will keep her profile and speaking fees high.
Based on the last election, she is a spent force, and perhaps even an embarrassment in conservative circles. If not for the reflexive hatred she inspires on the left, she would be relegated to the basic cable sideshow tent. If you truly want her out of the "public square", all you need to do is ignore her.

There's seemingly a vast majority of the U.S. that is stepping to the beat of the "basic cable sideshow tent". I don't know if it's so much a sideshow. I have a whole strain of my family that are FoxNews aficionados/Ditto Heads or whatever - most of them have advanced degrees- they just happen to live in a city strife with poverty and are sick of being taxed to death to see it wasted on people that, in their opinion, don't want to help themselves (their sentiments, not mine)
Last visit, one particular relative (a PhD) proudly stated the ratings for FoxNews vs. MSNBC & NPR

And I shudder to type that I applaud Karl Rove for anything, but at least he had the 'cajones' to publicly come out and denounce Palin (I guess he can do that since he's not running for office?)

So not only does the Left need to ignore Palin (Beck, Limbaugh, etc.), but Republicans Candidates need to communicate clearly where they stand on this 'Basic Cable Sideshow Tent'

So yeah - Palin "apparently fulfills some sort of need for an evil archetype in their [the Left] narrative", but Palin and her ilk also keep the votes rolling in for the Republicans. I'd love nothing more than to see a political party come about that doesn't have to cater to extremists of ANY kind to succeed..... I'd be the first to sign up

On another chat board I visited this morning...... "So Palin, How's that hatey, reloady, cross-hairy thing working for you?"
I seriously hope this is the end of her notoriety - I am so tired of her one trick pony show and sick of being obsessed with the thought of How Anyone Can Take Her Seriously. Obviously some people must, 'cuz not all of those Twitter Followers can be reporters just waiting around for the next train wreck.

Palin is NOT a creation of the Left (nor Beck, nor Limbaugh) -- they are the ones spouting their stuff with no rebuke or not a very loud one from the Right or at least the Republican Party that I can hear.


Signed,
Partyless Independent

redfox
1-11-11, 12:51pm
At this point in her gaudy career, Mrs. Palin strikes me as more a creation of the Left than the Right. Look how quickly and fervently prominent portside pundits insisted on making her an accomplice to the acts of an incoherent lunatic. No evidence required, just demonize her on the pretext of protesting against demonizing opponents. But she apparently fulfills some sort of need for an evil archetype in their narrative, so her enemies will keep her profile and speaking fees high.
Based on the last election, she is a spent force, and perhaps even an embarrassment in conservative circles. If not for the reflexive hatred she inspires on the left, she would be relegated to the basic cable sideshow tent. If you truly want her out of the "public square", all you need to do is ignore her.

Nonsense.

peggy
1-11-11, 1:29pm
Just one poster’s opinion, but aside from the timely exploration of firearm issues this may be the most obscene thread to hit the forum in years. So much finger-pointing, but with hardly a mention of how repugnant it is for anyone, ANYONE, to twist tragedy for political gain. And you know what’s worse? I pretty much expect to hear justification along the lines of “well, everybody else does it” from all sides. So sad and so #$@% sick.

I watched FOX for a while yesterday for the first time in a year or two, just to see what was said. What I heard there wasn’t any worse than what I heard on the Today show. How’s that for justification? I actually found CNN to be more deeply involved in the hate mongering business regarding the AZ shootings, but y’all watch both for a while and let me know what you think.

Sarah Palin is a charismatic figure that was originally brought to light by the Republican party. Since then the left leaning media (read: most of the media) has hung on her every word. They’re waiting for the next clothing bill or the next made-up-word or the next gaff of some kind, just like the part of NASCAR fans that wait to see a crash. Whether it’s intentional or not, Sarah makes sure the next crash is right around the corner. Keep ‘em coming back for more! Ms. Palin was “created” by the right, but would have met a sudden (political) end without the left. I doubt the GOP leadership could in their wildest dreams imagine a better scenario.

The left are the ones trying to put politics this? Oh the irony!

LDAHL
1-11-11, 2:57pm
There's seemingly a vast majority of the U.S. that is stepping to the beat of the "basic cable sideshow tent". I don't know if it's so much a sideshow.

If that were true, wouldn't we have a different president right now?

mtnlaurel
1-11-11, 3:15pm
If that were true, wouldn't we have a different president right now?

OK ... so maybe not a "vast majority" sideshow tenters, how about a really loud minority that scares the pants off of centrists.

I think if the Repub's would have put forward a better ticket they sure would have stood a better chance in last election though.

LDAHL
1-11-11, 3:21pm
OK ... so maybe not a "vast majority" sideshow tenters, how about a really loud minority that scares the pants off of centrists.

I think if the Repub's would have put forward a better ticket they sure would have stood a better chance in last election though.

I can't help but think how much better President Romney would have handled the last couple of years.

DocHolliday
1-11-11, 6:18pm
Sarah Palin is a charismatic figure that was originally brought to light by the Republican party. Since then the left leaning media (read: most of the media) has hung on her every word. They’re waiting for the next clothing bill or the next made-up-word or the next gaff of some kind, just like the part of NASCAR fans that wait to see a crash. Whether it’s intentional or not, Sarah makes sure the next crash is right around the corner. Keep ‘em coming back for more! Ms. Palin was “created” by the right, but would have met a sudden (political) end without the left. I doubt the GOP leadership could in their wildest dreams imagine a better scenario.

Sarah fills the void left by President Bush no longer being in office. For eight years the left had someone to vent their hatred on. Bush stole the election, Bush blew up the towers, Bush lied about WMDs, Bush blew up the levees, Bush destoyed the economy, Bush kicked my dog, Bush caused the Democrats to lose control of the House (according to Nancy Pelosi the other day). Now he's back in Crawford and Sarah stepped into his shoes.

Zigzagman
1-11-11, 6:42pm
Sarah fills the void left by President Bush no longer being in office.

As a Texan - I can honestly say that we don't miss "W" at all.

We have his replacement firmly in place - Rick Perry. Not only is he the longest serving Governor in Texas history but he really, really does represent people exactly like him!! http://www.simplelivingforum.net/images/smilies/sSig_help%5B1%5D.gif

With our present 27 Billion budget shortfall (yep, even with oil and gas revenue) I think the plans to "secede from the union" and even "withdraw from Medicare" have been put on hold. Now just might be the time we can convince him to live in a FEMA trailer instead of a 10K per month rent house - but I forget he is "Texas Royalty" and an Aggie!!

Peace

redfox
1-11-11, 9:13pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Alan
1-11-11, 10:13pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Apparently everybody's got an opinion. What makes Paul Krugman's different than anyone else's? Perhaps if he, or anyone else, had even the smallest shred of evidence to back up their beliefs, it might be worthy of contemplation.

Why is it so difficult to believe that an unstable individual, one who has shown an interest in his victim for at least 4 years, perpetrated an act of violence of his own volition? Why is it necessary to place blame everwhere but the one place it belongs?

ApatheticNoMore
1-11-11, 11:23pm
"When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

Well one expects it, because every so often a looney goes off in American culture, and shoots up a schoolyard, or kills his wife and kids, or goes postal on the employer that laid him off, or flys his plane into an IRS building, or attacks a politician. It's some kind of weird feature of the culture. And it's often tragic, but when viewed objectively such crazies aren't really a major cause of death any more than terrorists are (automobile accidents, lung cancer, etc. now THOSE are major causes of death).

Zigzagman
1-11-11, 11:27pm
Apparently everybody's got an opinion. What makes Paul Krugman's different than anyone else's?

Hmmm...Nobel Prize winner, written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals , written more than 750 columns dealing with current economic and political issues for New York Times. In my little world that is pretty distinguished - but then again I don't know that many smart people.


Why is it so difficult to believe that an unstable individual, one who has shown an interest in his victim for at least 4 years, perpetrated an act of violence of his own volition? Why is it necessary to place blame everwhere but the one place it belongs?

Alan - Not sure why you feel it is necessary to defend Palin's honor? Try watching more PBS!! :laff:

Peace

iris lily
1-11-11, 11:28pm
I suffered through Krugman's column today, but I preferred Kathleen Parker's about a different topic. I think I'll start a thread about that.

redfox
1-11-11, 11:31pm
The Dept. of Homeland Security report is a good place to start regarding the disturbing trends that Krugman cites.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Krugman cites several important trends - I won't repeat what the editorial says. He is also a brilliant, Nobel Prize winning investigative journalist. That carries weight for me regarding his opinion - and I know lots of very smart people.

I believe that his point - certainly what's important for me - is that no one acts in isolation from his or her context. A presumably mentally ill individual hearing the "armed & dangerous" etc. rhetoric shoots someone. Threats to elected officials are up in the 300-fold number. The public discourse is replete with not merely pointed and intense political commentary, but with explicit references to shooting as being a righteous action. That these overt threats come from the right wing, and are condoned by its' leadership, is frightening and sets a context for violence.

The person to hold legally accountable is the shooter. Evidence is a legal term, and it is used in a court of law. Mr. Krugman has not engaged in reporting out "the smallest shred of evidence" because he's naming social behavior, not a legal case.

What triggered this individual to move on his impulses now and not 4 years ago when his alleged obsession started? No man is an island - and at this moment, the country is focused on the rabid rhetoric of many public figures. We have an opportunity to stop the threatening language coming from the Bachmann's, Palin's, Beck's, and O'Reilly's of our country.

Responsible citizens don't need to resort to threats of violence to be heard. If Bachmann et all want to be counted as responsible citizens, it's time they spoke their very legitimate views in language that doesn't involve threats of violence. Or are the threats of gun violence all they have?

ApatheticNoMore
1-11-11, 11:43pm
I agree with Krugman's argument that threatening to kill people should not be part of politician's rhetoric. Really is anybody supposed to disagree?

"The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence. "

Yea but even if they are right about this, it's hard to take them seriously, as the security state is such an unreliable source. It's perpetually paranoid. Look at what the FBI does to peace activists on the left: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130274688 Heck maybe they are even right about the peace activists and they really are tied to terrorists, it's just that they've been so wrong for so long, they are hard to take seriously.

"Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will."

Well a Democratic Fox news analyst did call for killing journalist Julian Assange:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html
Granted Faux isn't going to have the sharpest tools in the shed on it's Democratic side. But it is a display of utter barbarianism from a guy who nominally calls himself a Democrat (personally I call him much worse things :)).

DocHolliday
1-12-11, 7:13am
Krugman cites several important trends - I won't repeat what the editorial says. He is also a brilliant, Nobel Prize winning investigative journalist. That carries weight for me regarding his opinion - and I know lots of very smart people.

I believe that his point - certainly what's important for me - is that no one acts in isolation from his or her context. A presumably mentally ill individual hearing the "armed & dangerous" etc. rhetoric shoots someone. Threats to elected officials are up in the 300-fold number. The public discourse is replete with not merely pointed and intense political commentary, but with explicit references to shooting as being a righteous action. That these overt threats come from the right wing, and are condoned by its' leadership, is frightening and sets a context for violence.

From the article: Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

For an award winning "investigative journalist" I wonder how he missed something like this: ""That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.- Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa.

Either he's being deliberately deceitful because it doesn't fit his narrative or maybe he isn't so much of an investigative journalist.

Alan
1-12-11, 8:05am
Either he's being deliberately deceitful because it doesn't fit his narrative or maybe he isn't so much of an investigative journalist.


That would be my guess.

Alan
1-12-11, 8:10am
Alan - Not sure why you feel it is necessary to defend Palin's honor? Try watching more PBS!! :laff:

Peace

I think all reasonable people have a duty to defend others against unwarranted attacks.
I do realize that many folks simply must place blame wherever it enhances their personal prejudices, but that doesn't make it right.

Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 8:27am
Of course he is being deceitful since he has no way of knowing what motivated Loughner and there is no evidence at this point of any connection.

Fortunately less than a third of the country agrees with him. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

And that third is just running on emotion, not facts or logic.

I would say quit acting like kids but I expect better than that from my kids too. Maybe the investigation finds he's been texting with Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin and he had a love tryst with Newt Gingrich at the Bush ranch in Crawford and they all put him up to this. But any pronouncements at this point are absurd and are just shameless political exploitation of a tragedy. Let's be adults and use this event to reflect on things that matter like the repeated problems of the mentally ill causing harm with guns based on facts at hand.

LDAHL
1-12-11, 8:56am
I think all reasonable people have a duty to defend others against unwarranted attacks.
I do realize that many folks simply must place blame wherever it enhances their personal prejudices, but that doesn't make it right.

If that's pursuing "civility", I think I prefer obstreperousness.

redfox
1-12-11, 9:27am
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/11/jared_loughner_paranoid_schizophrenia_and_why

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/11/husband_mental_illness_knife_rally_open2011

Gregg
1-12-11, 9:38am
*MOD COMMENT*

Posting links is fine, but please take a minute to explain what the link is about along with your posts. Thanks.

Gregg
1-12-11, 9:47am
The left are the ones trying to put politics this? Oh the irony!

Not what I'm saying at all, peggy. In this case the twisting may be more on the left, but in the next case it may be the right. Sooner or later both sides will try to twist any advantage they can from the tragedy du jour. It's disgusting no matter who does it.

Sarah Palin didn't influence Laughner any more than Jodi Foster influenced John Hinckley. Laughner's obsession with Gabby Giffords began long before Palin came to any kind of national prominence. Disturbed people will latch on to any sound bite that helps fulfill the fantasy world they are creating. Our world runs on sound bites so it is not hard to find a few that will fit any need.

Zigzagman
1-12-11, 10:51am
After reading through this thread and reading the news this morning, one thing stands out to me (viewing from a left perspective). Those on the right that have been constantly beating the drums of hate with their "take back America, second amendment solution, reload, socialism, illegal immigrant" rhetoric simply refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for creating this political climate in our country. I think they view it as a winning strategy based upon the turn around in congress last election. They have captured the heart and minds of many who firmly believe that one group of citizen is better, more patriotic, and more "American" than another group.

No attempt to turn down the rhetoric, no compromise, no accountability, my way or the highway attitudes which means that our divisiveness will just escalate until something happens even more horrible than the Arizona incident. I think we have become a nation divided based on political ideology which will make things probably worse not better in the near term. I personally think we are going backwards not forward in terms of freedom and representative government.

Peace

redfox
1-12-11, 10:57am
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/11/jared_loughner_paranoid_schizophrenia_and_why

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/11/husband_mental_illness_knife_rally_open2011

Sorry, Greg! Good point. Both of these are about mental illness, the first an interview with a psychiatrist who states that the Arizona shooter is clearly suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that this shooting is about his illness, and not politics. The second is a story of a woman whose husband was mentally ill.

Gregg
1-12-11, 11:08am
I personally think we are going backwards not forward in terms of freedom and representative government.
Peace

Agreed. What can we do to steer things back to the middle of the road (where most Americans apparently would like to be)?

peggy
1-12-11, 12:36pm
Agreed. What can we do to steer things back to the middle of the road (where most Americans apparently would like to be)?

Well, a good place to start would be for the right to own up to the fact that they are largely responsible for this climate of hatred and deamonizing. They have promoted, as a political strategy, this connection of themselves and guns and gun violence as a political solution. They have brought the visuals of guns and gun violence as a solution to political differences into the arena. And they have pushed this meme over and over and over in their speeches, their political ads, their fundraisers and their visuals. Do I really need to get the links for you cause I can. But I think we've all seen them. And no, it's NOT on both sides equally. And it's surly NOT leaders on the left who do anything like this.
They systematically pushed, and wanted us to connect them with, as one candidate put it, "If ballots don't work, bullets will."
On top of this conflating republicans with 2nd admenment solutions, they have vilified democrats/liberals as not just political opponents, but evil, America hating enemies who need to be "taken out". No, Sarah Palin didn't shoot those people, and maybe he didn't see her dispicable poster, but she and the right have purposefully provided justification for any nut job out there just looking for a target. And after all, that crazy little voice in his head must be right because here are the leaders of our nation saying it's so.
I say she did it purposfully because if you remember when her little "target map" first came out, most people, even many republicans, called her on it and told her then it was dispicable and dangerous. Our cute little mamma grizzly just giggled and re-loaded.

They did this gregg. Not the left, not President Obama, not msmbc. The far-right did this, and Sarah Palin did this. On purpose, for a purpose. Now they need to own it.
That would be a good start.

There used to be a time, in this country, when hate speech like this was called out, by both sides, swiftly and unanomously. I see now that the republican talking point is that what they say and do and show doesn't mean anything, but calling them out on it is dangerous! Another threat! Sadly, threats seems to be all they have left.

Alan
1-12-11, 1:15pm
Saw an interesting cartoon today. Thought it might fit in here.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz011211dAPR20110112024559.jpg (http://townhall.com/cartoons/2011/1/12/77547)

Gregg
1-12-11, 6:36pm
Well, a good place to start would be for the right to own up to the fact that they are largely responsible for this climate of hatred and deamonizing.

I will say, just like I've always said, that the spewing of far right wing media and the far right politicos is part of the problem if you want to analyze the polarity in our country. I can't, and won't, accept that conservative philosophy is responsible for the Tuscon shootings or any other act committed by an obviously disturbed person. It was an individual act for which an individual was responsible, not part of a vast conspiracy. Rather than arguing about individual responsibility vs. finding someone to blame for misfortune it might make more sense to ask what should be done? Since neither of us is a fan of the current climate what should we do to improve it and still keep the Constitution in tact?

Gregg
1-12-11, 6:49pm
On a side note, DD had a bunch of friends over last weekend. The boys brought the X-Box and some games. Once they were tired of dancing with the stars the guys brought out "Call of Duty: Black Ops". I watched them play it for about a minute before banning the game from our house for life (my house is decidedly NOT a democracy). Admittedly I'm not very up to speed on video games, but the level of violence in this game was appalling. Do I think that a normal, rational person would play this game then be capable of something like what happened in Tuscon? Of course not, but at the same time there is SO much imagery from SO many sources that desensitizes people there is probably a cumulative effect. Same question as above, how do we change that and still adhere to the Constitution? I put the responsibility to do that in the lap of individuals, not the government. YMMV.

peggy
1-12-11, 6:56pm
So, I found you some images. Some of your tea party buddies?

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/az-republicans-resig/

Better hurry, I hear these are selling fast!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/joe-wilson-you-lie-assault-rifle_n_807644.html

No, violent images and rhetoric and talk of second amendment solutions have absolutely NO affect.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/11/935493/-CBS-poll:-Over-a-quarter-of-Republicans-think-violence-against-government-justified

some ads
http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/01/12/video-republican-ads-for-us-congress-heavy-on-guns-and-rhetoric/

Naw, gun rhetoric NEVER gives these nuts any ideas...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anti-health-care-reform-protester-encourages-physical-violence-use-of-firearms.php

And just so our Canadian friends won't think we've forgotten them. We know what you are doing! Here, let Glenn Beck explain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFWOLSIhYMg

And, finally, a DIRECT connection between Glenn beck/fox News and hate speech and a murderous rampage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoTpLr-mBLc&feature=player_embedded


How many more links do you need? Give me a number.

bae
1-12-11, 6:57pm
Admittedly I'm not very up to speed on video games, but the level of violence in this game was appalling. Do I think that a normal, rational person would play this game then be capable of something like what happened in Tuscon? Of course not, but at the same time there is SO much imagery from SO many sources that desensitizes people there is probably a cumulative effect.

You could just as easily spin a just-so story about games like this providing a socially-accepted outlet for acting out aggression by young males, reducing their desire to do such things in real life...

Gregg
1-12-11, 7:21pm
Hmmm, maybe. I'm no shrink, but doesn't aggression release usually involve physical activity? Even with the positive spin the boys can release using the game somewhere outside my little fiefdom.

Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 7:25pm
You could just as easily spin a just-so story about games like this providing a socially-accepted outlet for acting out aggression by young males, reducing their desire to do such things in real life...

It's actually a net social plus in our house as it provides some good father-son bonding time and therefore probably reduces the chances of any future antisocial behavior. Neither my son or I have gunned down anyone since buying the game. And if we did, it wouldn't be Treyarch's fault.

peggy
1-12-11, 9:44pm
All I know is, when I was dating (and it's been awhile) whenever we went to a movie that featured car chases, my dates drove much faster and more recklessly after the movie. People are affected by advertisements and visuals. We all know that. How many times have we discussed here the effects of advertisement. We know it works and so do the politicians. Otherwise, why would they spend millions on it. They know a well placed sound bite can build, or destroy a campaign.

We know Sarah Palin isn't responsible for this tragedy. But maybe, just maybe, we can acknowledge that these hateful words can and do have an effect. They create the climate that gives credibility to any crazy notion some nut job is thinking. The world is out to get you and it must be true because there's a guy on tv saying as much!

Why can't the right just admit that maybe these words and ads and visuals are maybe not the best choice in this violent world. Do they really want to condemn themselves to a future of constant defence of their nasty rhetoric in the face of yet another nut job shooting things up because the "government" is out to get them? I just don't understand why they feel they need to defend this type of hate speech and gun violence visuals they have intentionally tied themselves to. Did they really not see the end game of this? We all pretty much did. We know this would not end good. How come Sarah Palin couldn't see this? How come Glenn beck didn't see this? Well, to be truthful, Glenn Beck is a truly disturbed individual. I mean, this guy has serious mental problems, and I'm not just exercising hyperbole here. This guy isn't going to end up "good" either, I'll make that prediction now.
But Sarah Palin, although as dumb as a bag of rocks, isn't mentally disturbed like Beck. She should know better. Or at least her handlers should know better. But this woman doesn't seem to have a re-wind. She just keeps digging that hole.

Well, she has effectively ruined her chances for President (personally I'm sorry for that) but it would still be nice, and the classy thing to do, to come out and say maybe this wasn't the best image we could have used. Maybe, just maybe we should back off on the 'gun violence as political solution' meme. But, this woman is pretty shallow and easy to read, this ain't gonna happen. She has not shown to have a classy bone in her body. Unfortunate really. As much as she has directed this nasty, hateful political discourse, she could move so many people is a different direction.

Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 10:25pm
Ah, glad to see the healing has begun. With such flimsy logic you might as well say that since by all reports he didn't watch the news or listen to talk radio that the real problem was ________. So just go ahead an fill in the blank with whatever you want since no evidence is required. I'm going with Donnie Darko since it was his favorites list and I've downloaded it on my iPad. Hope it's that wacked out it pushes me to do something crazy.

iris lily
1-12-11, 10:30pm
no, you haven't seen Donnie Darko!!!??? It's a cult classic. It's pretty good.

Catwoman
1-13-11, 5:44am
Perhaps someone should tell Sheriff Dupnik about his deputies being "familiar" with the shooter, local law enforcement stopping him the day of the shooting, classmates in the college practically begging for someone to do something about him...but no, let's blame "hate speech" and "Sarah Palin".

The shooter was not political, he was nuts...Sheriff Dupnik needs to resign.

Free exchange of ideas, however hateful the rhetoric becomes is a right. Krugman is becoming unimportant and he needed something to put him back in the limelight.

ApatheticNoMore
1-13-11, 3:18pm
I guess I tend to see right wing radio/tv/etc. as a subculture rather than as the culture itself (I don't even LIKE the culture itself, but there's no way I'm giving right wing media so much influence), so then I want to see that the killer actually has contact with that subculture. If he does in some way or other than it may be right that rhetoric had some effect (but he was still crazy).

Are there any messages that are part of the culture as such? Well sure: "violence solves problems" is certainly one of them, don't be a weakling, buy a car, have 2.5 kids, marry at the appropriate age, buy a house, envy thy neighbor, people with more education are better than people with less education, you should want to get rich, always act your age, your not beautiful enough, looks are very important, go on a diet, you can never be too rich or too thin, your not good enough, work hard, soldiers are heroes, our leaders will take care of us (if only we elect the right ones), things will continue much as they always have. Etc.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-14-11, 1:52am
Apologies if this has been mentioned previously but is Sarah Palin aware of what the term "blood libel" signifies?

bae
1-14-11, 2:01am
Apologies if this has been mentioned previously but is Sarah Palin aware of what the term "blood libel" signifies?

Probably. Do you have a problem with her using the phrase?

"The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term." - Alan Dershowitz

But hey, go ahead, play that card. It's expected.

ljevtich
1-14-11, 2:03am
I am glad to hear the news, that she has started to move her arms and legs around, open her eyes and the rest. She definitely is a trooper and I hope she comes out of this OK.

peggy
1-14-11, 8:32am
Probably. Do you have a problem with her using the phrase?

"The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term." - Alan Dershowitz

But hey, go ahead, play that card. It's expected.

Well, maybe YOU'RE not offended bae, but you're not Jewish, and many Jewish people ARE saying they are offended, and confused really, by her use of the term. I'm going with their opinion, if it's all the same, but thanks for weighing in. It's always good to get the catholic perspective on whether the Jews should be offended of not. ;)

Alan
1-14-11, 8:39am
Well, maybe YOU'RE not offended bae, but you're not Jewish, and many Jewish people ARE saying they are offended, and confused really, by her use of the term. I'm going with their opinion, if it's all the same, but thanks for weighing in. It's always good to get the catholic perspective on whether the Jews should be offended of not. ;)
Peggy, you may not be aware that the person quoted is a prominent American Jew, so I'm not sure the "Catholic" perspective has anything to do with it.

I can tell you that from my non-secular viewpoint, this is just another example of people making a mountain out of a molehill, seemingly to fit a preferred narrative.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-14-11, 8:48am
[QUOTE=bae;3749

But hey, go ahead, play that card. It's expected.[/QUOTE]

It's expected is it? By whom?

Gregg
1-14-11, 9:07am
Well, maybe YOU'RE not offended bae, but you're not Jewish, and many Jewish people ARE saying they are offended, and confused really, by her use of the term. I'm going with their opinion, if it's all the same, but thanks for weighing in. It's always good to get the catholic perspective on whether the Jews should be offended of not. ;)

I'm not aware of any consensus outcry from the Jewish community regarding Ms. Palin's use of "blood libel" and didn't immediately find any quotes from people who were "confused" by it. My SIL is Jewish and this did come up at dinner with her last night. Her take was that it was "kind of silly" for Palin to use that term, but it seems her family feels the same way Alan Dershowitz does regarding it's use in the popular lexicon. I would take an educated guess and say that the Jewish people who are offended by the comment are also mostly liberal and are seizing the opportunity to do a little Palin bashing. Politics as usual. That you're "going with their opinion" won't be the biggest surprise of the day, peggy.

iris lily
1-14-11, 9:35am
Apologies if this has been mentioned previously but is Sarah Palin aware of what the term "blood libel" signifies?

Why don't you tell us what YOU think it signifies?

Eggs and Shrubs
1-14-11, 10:40am
Why don't you tell us what YOU think it signifies?

To me blood libel is a slur which refers, specifically, to Jews feasting on the blood of Christians, and is therefore hugely offensive to the Jewish community.

To use it in a speech which concerned, in part, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, the Jewish congresswoman from Arizona, is therefore an act of such crassness that it should disqualify Palin from serious public office for life.

Furthermore, Palin is a joke that is not funny. When did idiocy become such an admirable quality?

Reyes
1-14-11, 11:16am
Guess I'll be the first to admit, I have not heard the term before and did not know its history.

Zigzagman
1-14-11, 11:26am
Never heard the term myself. :0 For someone to use that term in these circumstances tells me it was used with full awareness of the likely response. Just a continuation of inflammatory speech. I guess in today's world humility equals defeat. I wonder if this is actually viewed as a positive by anyone?

Peace

ApatheticNoMore
1-14-11, 11:32am
I didn't know what it meant either, I don't know that I'd ever heard the term before. Hey, I try, but I don't know everything. :) And if Palin is such an idiot she probably doesn't know either. Her speechwriters and advisers are an entirely different story though.

Eggs and Shrubs
1-14-11, 11:37am
Unlike the majority of people on this forum I live in Europe. We have a history of anti semitism that started centuries ago and culminated in millions of Jews being incinerated in extermination camps across the continent. The "blood libel" issue was part of the process that dehumanised Jews.

The bigger question is who told Palin to use it?

redfox
1-14-11, 12:00pm
I think it's a mistake to assume Ms. Palin is stupid. I think she is very smart. I also think she has poor emotional intelligence, and I wonder about a personality disorder some times. I believe her use of this phrase was intentional, and that she doesn't have the empathy to think through the impacts of such a slur. I wonder too if the use of this biblical reference is code that is familiar to her religious peers?

creaker
1-14-11, 12:06pm
For Palin to say her rhetoric is not responsible for spawning hate and violence but the rhetoric of her detractors is spawning hate and violence is a bit disingenuous.

Crystal
1-14-11, 12:07pm
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-it-going-to-take-way-more-than-an-inconceiv,18816/?utm_souce=popbox

The Onion: It's going to take way more than an inconceivable act of violence for country to rise above politics.

Yep. :doh:

redfox
1-14-11, 12:07pm
For Palin to say her rhetoric is not responsible for spawning hate and violence but the rhetoric of her detractors is spawning hate and violence is a bit disingenuous.

Ya think... ?

Gina
1-14-11, 12:23pm
I also had not heard the term 'blood libel' and had to look it up. Doubt Palin knew what it meant either. If she did know what it meant, she has a poor perspective of her own worth to equate the persecution she thinks is being done to her for just a few days, vs what has been done to an entire group of people for centuries, including genocide.

Even if it didn't offend all Jews, she should have suspected a great many would be offended, and in these circumstances????

If, more likely, she didn't know what it meant she should have found out (assuming she has any intellectual curiousity).

In any event, as someone pointed out, if she didn't know the actual meaning of the term, why was she using the word 'blood' after 6 people had been murdered and so many others shot? It reminds me of GWB using the term 'crusade' when invading Iraq.

If nothing else, the woman is tone-deaf.

peggy
1-14-11, 12:41pm
I'm not aware of any consensus outcry from the Jewish community regarding Ms. Palin's use of "blood libel" and didn't immediately find any quotes from people who were "confused" by it. My SIL is Jewish and this did come up at dinner with her last night. Her take was that it was "kind of silly" for Palin to use that term, but it seems her family feels the same way Alan Dershowitz does regarding it's use in the popular lexicon. I would take an educated guess and say that the Jewish people who are offended by the comment are also mostly liberal and are seizing the opportunity to do a little Palin bashing. Politics as usual. That you're "going with their opinion" won't be the biggest surprise of the day, peggy.

And it's certainly no surprise that the "usual suspects" rush to defend this ridiculous woman. I'm also not surprised that perpetual victim Palin would compare this "calling out" to genocide of the Jewish people. Yea, it's the same Sarah!
And by the way, she DID post a poster out of several democrats with gun site cross hairs over them. And her speeches are full of "reloading" and 'second amendment solutions". That's a fact, not a baseless accusation. A fact. Maybe SHE thinks simply scrubbing her site of these visuals makes them 'go away', but this concerted effort by the right to deny it is beyond the pale. And certainly not the surprise of the day.

Frankly I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying these nasty words and visuals and threats by the right and Palin had nothing at all to do with this nut jobs frame of mind. We don't know what set this guy off. Maybe they didn't and maybe they did. We don't know. No, there's no evidence they did, but there's no evidence they didn't either.
Now don't you just think, in the light of this political assassination attempt, Palin would have the class, or at least the smarts, to walk it back a bit? That's all she had to do. People want her to be more than what she appears, and just a few words of regret would have done it. Not admission of guilt, just regret that the gun rhetoric was a bit over the top. But she didn't. I don't think she is capable of it really. She really blew the opportunity to 'look Presidential'.

So, yea, there's a lot there to criticize. And as long as she keeps putting herself, and her nut ball views and words out there to be judged, I'm going to judge them. And no amount of bullying from the right is going to stop me from pointing out the obvious. She could just go away and we'd stop talking about her and move on to the next topic, but she won't. She can't help herself. Her over inflated view of her importance keeps getting in the way. I guess you could say she's on a mission from god!

bae
1-14-11, 2:35pm
If anyone is feeling the urge to "do something", this article suggests a path :

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/14/landsberg.mental.health.arizona/index.html?iref=allsearch

Gregg
1-14-11, 2:41pm
Frankly I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying these nasty words and visuals and threats by the right and Palin had nothing at all to do with this nut jobs frame of mind. We don't know what set this guy off. Maybe they didn't and maybe they did. We don't know.

Time for me to walk the walk a little and take a deep breath. Sorry if you ended up in my proverbial cross hairs, peggy. :( You are absolutely right, no one really knows what set this guy off. Heck, he probably doesn't even know. If the psychologists examining him are able to determine that it might be beneficial for all of us. Beyond that it is just meaningless speculation by all of us.



Now don't you just think, in the light of this political assassination attempt, Palin would have the class, or at least the smarts, to walk it back a bit? That's all she had to do. People want her to be more than what she appears, and just a few words of regret would have done it. Not admission of guilt, just regret that the gun rhetoric was a bit over the top. But she didn't. I don't think she is capable of it really. She really blew the opportunity to 'look Presidential'.


I tend to agree with your assessment of Sarah Palin as ridiculous. Maybe not her personally because I don't know her so can't make that call, but her as a political figure. I'm guessing she has blown every opportunity to look Presidential because she's NOT Presidential. She blew an opportunity to put forth a unified, compassionate (and yea, classy) message. It doesn't show any of the qualities I look for in a leader, but I never had any plan to vote for her anyway.

The one thing worth noting is that the defense of Sarah Palin here on the boards is often more along the lines of defending her right to say what she says as opposed to a defense of her personally. There is a difference. The "usual suspects" are often the same ones that work to keep individual liberties from slipping away. For you or for Sarah.

peggy
1-14-11, 3:39pm
Time for me to walk the walk a little and take a deep breath. Sorry if you ended up in my proverbial cross hairs, peggy. :( You are absolutely right, no one really knows what set this guy off. Heck, he probably doesn't even know. If the psychologists examining him are able to determine that it might be beneficial for all of us. Beyond that it is just meaningless speculation by all of us.




I tend to agree with your assessment of Sarah Palin as ridiculous. Maybe not her personally because I don't know her so can't make that call, but her as a political figure. I'm guessing she has blown every opportunity to look Presidential because she's NOT Presidential. She blew an opportunity to put forth a unified, compassionate (and yea, classy) message. It doesn't show any of the qualities I look for in a leader, but I never had any plan to vote for her anyway.

The one thing worth noting is that the defense of Sarah Palin here on the boards is often more along the lines of defending her right to say what she says as opposed to a defense of her personally. There is a difference. The "usual suspects" are often the same ones that work to keep individual liberties from slipping away. For you or for Sarah.

The whole thing is just really so sad, isn't it. That link bae gave was a good one, well worth reading.
I'll tell you who I really feel sorry for and that's his parents. Not only have they lost a son, essentially, but they have to live with what he did the rest of their lives. And you just know a day won't go by without them thinking of this, if they live to be 100.

DocHolliday
1-15-11, 1:17pm
She is a venal and nasty public figure.

I look forward to the day her vitriol dries up and disappears from the public square. It's time to reinvigorate what civil means in civil discourse.

Oh the irony...

DocHolliday
1-15-11, 1:31pm
After reading through this thread and reading the news this morning, one thing stands out to me (viewing from a left perspective). Those on the right that have been constantly beating the drums of hate with their "take back America, second amendment solution, reload, socialism, illegal immigrant" rhetoric simply refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for creating this political climate in our country.

Ah yes, I remember so well that climate of peace, love, and tolerance fomented by the left during the Bush years. Bush called Hitler, fascist, Nazi, war criminal, the "Snipers wanted" episode, the Bush assassination movie, the giddiness of the left when he choked on the pretzel and the shoe thrower incident. The gunshots used on the Randi Rhodes Air America show, the death wishes from Ed Schultz on his show. Whether it's just forgetfulness or historical revisionism by the left, I'm not sure...

Gina
1-15-11, 1:31pm
Oh the irony...
Palin is a public figure who preaches about guns and blood to millions via the mainstream media. Redfox is writing in a small forum with less than 500 members.

Some might see irony, but the basics are not in any way equal. ;)

DocHolliday
1-15-11, 1:40pm
here's my best guess as to where the "blood libel" phrase usage comes from: Glenn Reynolds' excellent article the day after the shooting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion#articleTabs%3Darticle

DocHolliday
1-15-11, 1:48pm
And it's certainly no surprise that the "usual suspects" rush to defend this ridiculous woman.

...


Frankly I'm getting a little tired of everyone saying these nasty words and visuals and threats by the right and Palin had nothing at all to do with this nut jobs frame of mind. We don't know what set this guy off. Maybe they didn't and maybe they did. We don't know. No, there's no evidence they did, but there's no evidence they didn't either.



Just like it is no surprise that the "usual suspects" would try to blame her with no evidence...

If there's no evidence either way then why would you even bring up Sarah Palin at all. You were the first one in this thread to mention her name. Were you looking to place the blame on her, even at that early moment.

I guess the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't hold much meaning for you.

bae
1-15-11, 1:58pm
Palin is a public figure who preaches about guns and blood to millions via the mainstream media. Redfox is writing in a small forum with less than 500 members.

Some might see irony, but the basics are not in any way equal. ;)

Equal? Indeed not.

One is a political entertainer acting to a script. Yawn.

The other is giving us a direct look into the workings of A Certain Sort Of Mind. Much more interesting.

Gina
1-15-11, 2:02pm
If there's no evidence either way then why would you even bring up Sarah Palin at all.

In an eerie foreshadowing interview Giffords herself mentioned Palin, the crosshairs ('surveyor's marks', 'printers's marks', 'crop circles' - whatever the 'revisionist history' Palin camp is attempting to push.) placed over her district, and there being consequences for words.... I can post a link to that interview if you like.

There is no evidence Palin is connected in any way with this assassinatin attempt. But people bring up her name because on the public stage she loves to mix images of blood, guns, shooting, and the like with politics. Surely you can't be this naive.

redfox
1-15-11, 3:07pm
Oh the irony...

Ironic? Hardly. My using the terms venal and nasty regarding Ms. Palin was intentional and considered~ she is a public figure, and as such, needs to be held accountable for her public words. As a private citizens, it's our responsibility to hold public figures' feet to the fire. If I overheard her in the grocery store as my neighbor, I may or may not personally challenge her, but I would not take it public.

Our democracy counts on each of us speaking up. Challenging power when we see the need - regardless of our political stance, criticizing public figures for their speech and behavior, and naming what we see is vital to the health of our republic.

Zigzagman
1-15-11, 3:21pm
As a private citizens, it's our responsibility to hold public figures' feet to the fire. If I overheard her in the grocery store as my neighbor, I may or may not personally challenge her, but I would not take it public.

Our democracy counts on each of us speaking up. Challenging power when we see the need - regardless of our political stance, criticizing public figures for their speech and behavior, and naming what we see is vital to the health of our republic.

Tell it!

Peace

Dharma Bum
1-15-11, 3:31pm
Oh please, don't act like you are some kind of guardians of public trust. First Alan Dershowitz defends her, and then Rabbi Schmuley (bolding mine). Seems to me you are engaging in exactly the same type of angry partisanship as the right wing hacks. And it is ironic, as the Rabbi notes:




Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'

By SHMULEY BOTEACH
...

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
...

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html

iris lily
1-15-11, 3:40pm
...Our democracy counts on each of us speaking up. Challenging power when we see the need - regardless of our political stance, criticizing public figures for their speech and behavior, and naming what we see is vital to the health of our republic.

Actually, I think that typing a buncha words on a web chat site such as this is just adding more to the useless noise of public discord.

I know because I do it and have a little fun with it, but I don't try to represent my ill willed chat messages as high minded public duty.

While you are right that we DO have a public duty toward public officials, by golly, I do believe that enough voices--what is it now, about a thousands media commentataors by now?--have spoken out against Sarah Palin, why you need to add your voice is beyond me, 'cept that it's fun, and I get that.

Zigzagman
1-15-11, 4:04pm
Actually, I think that typing a buncha words on a web chat site such as this is just adding more to the useless noise of public discord.

I am just now beginning to realize that the internet is the great keeper of trust in America. Just like Wikileaks exposed a our lack of transparency in Government the new digital media is now what keep people in public service somewhat honest or at least restrained. Otherwise we would have only those of influence and power policing those who serve us. No matter the issue or political philosophy - in today's world someone is there to keep you honest. I say "Rant On!! :+1:

Peace

redfox
1-15-11, 5:41pm
Oh please, don't act like you are some kind of guardians of public trust.

I think we're all guardians of democracy - is that the public trust you reference?

And Iris - I always learn from these convos. To me this isn't " a buncha words...", it's the thinking of people with whom I share some values, and am interested in the dialogue.

peggy
1-15-11, 6:43pm
Just like it is no surprise that the "usual suspects" would try to blame her with no evidence...

If there's no evidence either way then why would you even bring up Sarah Palin at all. You were the first one in this thread to mention her name. Were you looking to place the blame on her, even at that early moment.

I guess the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't hold much meaning for you.

Well, I guess I was the first one to post about this because i came upon the post shortly after it went up. Why did I mention Sarah Palin? You've got to be kidding. My memory isn't that short. I, and pretty much every decent person was appalled by that poster when Palin first put it up. And it wasn't all that long ago, so, yea, that was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news. It's not really a stretch to connect a poster with gun site cross hairs over some one's head, and that person being shot, now is it.

You know, Sarah Palin DID put that poster up. That's a fact which she, or you cannot deny. She did it. And she knew what she was doing because she was called on it when she did it. People said at the time it was wrong and reprehensible and dangerous, including the congresswoman herself. And those facts are not going to go away. Palin did this and like the coward she is, refuses to own it.

Now, as far as evidence, no there isn't evidence that this nut job even saw the poster. But there is no evidence all this hateful talk and connecting of guns and gun violence with politics didn't influence him. There is evidence he was on the Internet a lot, and this hateful talk and demonizing of the democrats/liberals is all over the Internet. Even here on this forum. We spar back and forth all the time, but I'm pretty sure if any of us were to meet in person, we'd all get along just fine. But when you throw a mentally unstable person in the mix, and he's reading things that fit into his deranged world view, maybe an "official" person, like a congressperson, television personality, or right wing saviour (Palin) is the voice of "authority" that sends him over the top.

And this is where the problem lies. It's not just simple political disagreement. Many on the right, some on the left but the majority of it comes from the right, have gone beyond disagreement to vilifying. They do this on purpose, much in the same way the white land owners treated the slaves, and each side in Bosnia treats each other, and how the Hutus treated the Tutsis. It was/is a systematic campaign to dehumanize the "enemy", in this case the democrats/liberals. They aren't just political enemies but American hating, freedom destroying socialist. The right has systematically, through lies and distortions, portrayed liberals as anti-god, anti-freedom, anti-everything good and pure in this country. And people on the right, uneducated, (and sometimes educated) buy it. The right calls themselves the "values vote" as if democratic values are somehow not the same, or nonexistent. They constantly scream about "taking the country back". From who to what is never asked. Their base knows it's from those evil liberals who are out to destroy their way of life.

And Sarah Palin, along with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News leads the way. Unfortunately several republican leaders in congress have jumped on the band wagon and joined their voices in this demonizing of democrats.
But the thing about screeching rhetoric is, people get used to it. They get used to the noise level and yawn and move on. So the screeching and vilifying must be increased to keep their interest, and for the right, their votes. This next level, introduced with the tea party, is guns. Guns and politics, and guns as a way to force your politics. People go to political meetings armed, to intimidate and threaten the politicians. Again this political "theatre" has been embraced by so called leaders in congress. We saw that in this last election in ads and speeches, and fund raisers where your constituents could shoot a cut out with the politicians opponent's initials on it. Why every decent person is not just horrified by this is beyond me. People don't know this is theatre. their base doesn' tknow this is "for show". They believe it, every word.

This is the climate in which a political assassination attempt was carried out. Did it influence him? I don't know. But the point is, it's out there TO influence him. There has always been hate talk, and nut jobs, but in the past, hate talk was unanimously condemned, by both sides, and leaders of neither party would even dream of talking about shooting their opponent, or put out a map with cross hairs over their opponents head. And just a surely as the Hutus convinced a nation that the tutsis were sub-human and needed to be exterminated, as surly as the Nazis convinced the Germans that Jews, gypsies and others were sub-human, the right, led by Sarah Palin, is systematically trying to convince this nation that the godless, socialists democrats/liberals are out to destroy all that is good.
Sarah Palin has just happened to purposefully planted herself right at the lead of it.

Alan
1-15-11, 7:01pm
There is evidence he was on the Internet a lot, and this hateful talk and demonizing of the democrats/liberals is all over the Internet. Even here on this forum.

Peggy, if you're up to the challenge, can you give us an example of anyone on the right demonizing democrats/liberals on this forum? I've been reading every day and can't remember any examples.

peggy
1-15-11, 10:35pm
Well Alan, we don't have the old forum posts, but i think you remember PDQ and some of the things that poster said. I never felt threatened, but the rants against Obama and liberals in general were pretty regular. And not just the regular 'I hate their politics' stuff, but the whole socialist, anti-American, evil Obama stuff. There were a few others, but they generally came and went. I'm not one to take my marbles and go home in a huff so i tried to pretty much ignore them. I did rise to the bait occasionally, I'm sorry to say, but I guess you all know I can dish it out as well :|( so i don't like to complain. Fair is fair.

My main point was that political discussion can get heated, but sane, civilized people know when to cool down and agree to disagree. I can guarantee you if I were to encounter PDQ in "real life" and he/she started spouting some of the stuff he/she said on the old forum, I'd just quickly, and quietly walk away. I'm just afraid that in a heightened atmosphere of rhetoric such as we've seen lately, a person who is mentally unstable won't have that ability. This is why we are so horrified at the attempt of Palin and others to constantly suggest the use of guns and the threat of gun violence as a political solution. And it's not just the right Alan, although I find it amusing that the right immediately assumed everyone was just talking about them (I wonder why ;)) But the constant connection of guns with political solutions is bad for both sides. What if some unstable person wants to 'stop' the nasty rhetoric? There might be an unstable person out there right now who hears the right's "call to arms" and decides to defend the democrats. See, it's just not smart to bring guns into the political arena where emotions run pretty high already.

We have always had, and will always have, mentally unstable people among us. And they ARE on the Internet, and going to rallies, and watching Fox news, and maybe just looking for an excuse, or justification, of their delusional world view, and they aren't getting it on Food Network!

I guess this is my, and a lot of people's problem with Sarah Palin. She's not just a liar, or a smarmy con woman, but she's a rabble rouser. She appeals to people's basic fears using lies and distortions, gets them whipped up into a frenzy, then LITERALLY tells them to arm themselves. And who's the enemy they should take up arms against? Why are they taking up guns? Who are they going to shoot? No body ever asks that. No one ever asks Palin, who exactly do you want this whipped up crowd to shoot? Why doesn't anyone ask that?
Can you understand why this would make us more than just a little uncomfortable? It certainly made congresswoman Giffords uncomfortable.

Catwoman
1-15-11, 11:00pm
Wow! Peggy - what a connection: watching Fox news = mentally unstable, why, oh, my, lions and tigers and bears, going to rallies!!! Me and every other redneck guntotin granny thank you! We are just dangerous as hell!

Alan
1-16-11, 10:31am
Wow! Peggy - what a connection: watching Fox news = mentally unstable, why, oh, my, lions and tigers and bears, going to rallies!!! Me and every other redneck guntotin granny thank you! We are just dangerous as hell!

That's been a recurring theme on these boards for years, along with the idea that you're selfish, stupid, low-information, racist, etc.

That's why I find it extremely interesting to see one of the "usual suspects" accuse the right leaning members of hateful talk and demonizing liberals/democrats when it's easy to see that it doesn't happen here.

Zigzagman
1-16-11, 11:40am
That's been a recurring theme on these boards for years, along with the idea that you're selfish, stupid, low-information, racist, etc.

That's why I find it extremely interesting to see one of the "usual suspects" accuse the right leaning members of hateful talk and demonizing liberals/democrats when it's easy to see that it doesn't happen here.

I would be cautious about "taking the moral high ground" in terms of left/right conversations on these forums - there is plenty of stupid, low-information, racism here on both sides of the argument. I seriously doubt that any of us have all the answers - well, maybe a couple of people do! :laff:

Peace

peggy
1-16-11, 12:10pm
Wow! Peggy - what a connection: watching Fox news = mentally unstable, why, oh, my, lions and tigers and bears, going to rallies!!! Me and every other redneck guntotin granny thank you! We are just dangerous as hell!

Wow Catwoman. Perhaps you should actually read what I posted before you try to twist my words. That is not what I said, is it.

And Alan, I'm disappointed. You know that's not what I said. but, true to type, yall avoid discussing the real issues.
But, you know, this is a favorite tool of the right-wing. Take something, twist it to paint themselves into victims, and suddenly the real victims are to blame. I wonder how long it will be before some on the right start blaming Giffords for her assassination attempt. You think not? Just wait.

I"m done with this.

LDAHL
1-16-11, 12:43pm
I think there are a number of forces at work here that have little if anything to do with connecting intemperate metaphors with the actions of a sick individual, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence.

One is ideological. If you believe an expansion of the scope of government will make almost everyone’s life better, you need an explanation for the widespread skepticism and hostility to that proposition. It is much easier to blame such wrong-headed opinions on ignorant masses being misled by wicked demagogues than to re-examine your original proposition.

Another is commercial interest. The (formerly?) mainstream media pundits can certainly be excused for resenting their gradual erosion of profitability to AM-band and cable shouters, and it is perhaps predictable that they attribute all manner of baneful results to their influence.

Another is good old-fashioned cynical politics. Blaming your opposition for any bad stuff you can has been a staple since the founding of the republic. In that respect, we are no better or worse than our forebears.

Another is a sort of status anxiety. If I can convince myself that you are morally and intellectually deficient, I can feel better about myself without needing to consider any of my own shortcomings.

And finally, there is a sort of magical thinking that attributes results in the real world to your perceptions of the spiritual/moral climate. Pat Robertson attributing 9/11 to a disappointed deity is one example of this. Postulating a “climate of hate” is another.

In none of these cases will insisting on a rational discussion of cause and effect serve any real purpose.

bae
2-3-11, 8:34pm
Ah, nice to see folks are being more civil these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

peggy
2-3-11, 9:06pm
OK...so you found a few a--holes who said stupid things. And your point is....? Trying to stir up trouble bae? What exactly does this have to do with Gabby Giffords being shot?

Alan
2-3-11, 9:14pm
Ah, nice to see folks are being more civil these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

Wow!! "String him up", "lynch him", "put him back in the fields".

It's interesting to see progressives up close.

iris lily
2-3-11, 10:59pm
Ah, nice to see folks are being more civil these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

gads, Clarence Thomas is getting a beating this week. What did the guy do, anyway? Sending the lapdog back to the fields seems pretty harsh, but "stringing him up" is beyond the pale. What is this biz about avenging Anita Hil, where did that come from?

The ignorance and hate demonstrated in this video is as racist as anything I've seen.

Zigzagman
2-3-11, 11:18pm
Cut off his toes, one by one!!!! Would that be torture? Can't we all just get along? :0!

Poor Clarence, he just doesn't get any respect. :moon:

Peace

Gregg
2-3-11, 11:20pm
there is plenty of stupid, low-information, racism here on both sides...


What Zig said. "Here" as in this country, not here-here. We've gotten beyond that. Haven't we?

loosechickens
2-4-11, 1:44am
Nope, we haven't.......and there will always be people, who, rather than discuss facts, will reach into their bag of prejudices and say stupid, ignorant and racist stuff. Racism really is often not connected to politics in the sense that both progressives and conservatives can show plenty of it.

But to say that people dismiss him just because he is a conservative, when no one is dismissing the intellect or ability of Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, who are easily just as conservative, is disingenuous in the extreme.

The sort of ugly and racist attacks against him are not defensible in any way and should be deplored by everyone. Just as the ugly and racist attacks against President Obama should be deplored by all, whether supporters or not.

And, Alan, if you want to generalize about liberals from this video, you'd better start examining some of those tea party videos if you don't want folks to generalize about conservatives from those very racist folks. Seeing some of those conservative folks up close was interesting as well. I'd hate to judge all conservatives by them, and I'd hate to judge progressives by that video. But, please yourself.

Alan
2-4-11, 8:12am
Nope, we haven't.......and there will always be people, who, rather than discuss facts, will reach into their bag of prejudices and say stupid, ignorant and racist stuff. Racism really is often not connected to politics in the sense that both progressives and conservatives can show plenty of it.

But to say that people dismiss him just because he is a conservative, when no one is dismissing the intellect or ability of Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, who are easily just as conservative, is disingenuous in the extreme.

The sort of ugly and racist attacks against him are not defensible in any way and should be deplored by everyone. Just as the ugly and racist attacks against President Obama should be deplored by all, whether supporters or not.

And, Alan, if you want to generalize about liberals from this video, you'd better start examining some of those tea party videos if you don't want folks to generalize about conservatives from those very racist folks. Seeing some of those conservative folks up close was interesting as well. I'd hate to judge all conservatives by them, and I'd hate to judge progressives by that video. But, please yourself.

Loosie, I honestly don't believe that anyone dismisses Justice Thomas because he's a conservative. I think it's fairly apparent that many are dismissive of him because he's a black conservative of humble origins.

There is a popular belief that he lacks the intellectual capacity of his peers on the court and follows along on the coattails of Justice Scalia. Several here have even mentioned it recently!

Now why do you think that is? Is it because of a thorough review of his 300 plus written opinions during his tenure on the Supreme Court? Is it because of his tendancy to rule in agreement with the next most conservative member of the court? By that same reasoning, would you imply that Justice Ginsburg makes up for a lack of intellectual ability by voting in alignment with Justice Breyer a majority of the time? Could we also reason that Justices Alito and Thomas' voting alignments are based on one's intellectual deficit?

No, I don't think we'd make that leap. There must be something else at work here, don't you think?

From a Wikipedia article on Justice Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Voting_alignment):



The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia)'s is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice John Paul Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens) the least, 36% of the time.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#cite_note-96) Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUSblog) demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#cite_note-97) Goldstein's statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a 74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[99]


It simply appears to me that many people allow their prejudices to influence their reasoning, whether they're aware of it or not. As I alluded to in my previous post, it's interesting to see them bring those prejudices to the forefront for all the world to see, whether it's at an organized demonstration or on a small internet forum. It wasn't meant as a generalization but rather as an interesting bit of irony since the one demographic which consistently accuses others of racism seems oblivious to their own racist/classist tendancies

iris lily
2-4-11, 10:17am
Loosie, I honestly don't believe that anyone dismisses Justice Thomas because he's a conservative. I think it's fairly apparent that many are dismissive of him because he's a black conservative of humble origins.

There is a popular belief that he lacks the intellectual capacity of his peers on the court and follows along on the coattails of Justice Scalia. Several here have even mentioned it recently! ...

Sure, they think he is ignorant. An ignorant you-know-what who is only where he is as a token representative of his race. Because he can't see what whitey and the party of progressives have done for him. He doesn't appreciate their work in his behalf.

Some attitudes never change. But what's astonishing in this video is how many people are coming out as racist. I stopped watching it halfway through, got the message, didn't need to hear another half dozen spouting off the same BS.

The data about Ginsburg is interesting. Wonder if anyone will take that in.

freein05
2-4-11, 12:28pm
To get back to the original post I hear Gifford is doing really good. I sure hope so.

loosechickens
2-4-11, 12:40pm
I'm sure there is some of that, Alan, just as there is certainly a segment of the population that will dismiss the accomplishments of President Obama as "he was nothing but a community organizer", ignoring every other of his accomplishments, many of which required considerable ability, merit, scholarship and intellect.

I am not qualified to judge Justice Thomas on the basis of his legal opinions. I am not a legal scholar. I also admit that throughout the hearings, Anita Hill struck me as far more of a credible person than did his defense (his leaning heavily on "lynching"), and the fact that several other women in his life have come forward with similar stories of his addiction to pornography, inappropriate behavior, etc. Thank goodness nothing like that has happened since he has been on the court, which would have been a huge embarassment to that august body.

I also feel very queasy about his wife's activism in areas and about questions which are very likely to eventually come before her husband.

He just does not seem to be up to the caliber of many others on the court, to me. And since I have no difficulty in seeing intellect and ability in many people who happen to be African-American, regardless of their political persuasion, you're not going to convince me that my view has anything to do with his antecedents, upbringing or color.

Hey, I had a terrible opinion of George W. Bush and he had a wealthy upbringing, was white and had come from a prominent family. Was it because he was conservative? Hardly, since I admired his father.

Playing the race card that people are against someone because they are black and conservative, is just the other side of the coin from playing the race card of portraying the President as an African witch doctor, to me.

freein05
2-4-11, 1:15pm
Well I tried to get the thread back on the subject of Gifford but it did not work. Gifford's health is far more important to me than how bad or good judge Thomas is.

Alan
2-4-11, 1:29pm
I am not qualified to judge Justice Thomas on the basis of his legal opinions. I am not a legal scholar. I also admit that throughout the hearings, Anita Hill struck me as far more of a credible person than did his defense (his leaning heavily on "lynching"), and the fact that several other women in his life have come forward with similar stories of his addiction to pornography, inappropriate behavior, etc. Thank goodness nothing like that has happened since he has been on the court, which would have been a huge embarassment to that august body.......

....He just does not seem to be up to the caliber of many others on the court, to me. And since I have no difficulty in seeing intellect and ability in many people who happen to be African-American, regardless of their political persuasion, you're not going to convince me that my view has anything to do with his antecedents, upbringing or color.

As for Anita Hill, although I well remember the hearings, there was so much political subterfuge going on at the time I could never get a good feel for what was truth or what was not. Although there is one person who I admire very much for his common sense approach to complicated subjects, his stellar reputation among his peers and his unwavering stance on all things reasonable. Perhaps you've heard of him, his name is Thomas Sowell. Well, Mr Sowell had this to say (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222430/fatal-facts/thomas-sowell)about the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill incident. He brings out several points that I find to be of great interest. You might enjoy it as well.

I can appreciate your opinion that Justice Thomas "does not seem to be up to the caliber of many others on the court" as I feel that way about several of our current elected officials, but I'm still not sure what brings you, and others, to that conclusion. And I simply don't understand the constant refrain that he lacks intelligence. Is it something in his educational background or his written opinions or something less tangible?

I only ask because I really don't see anything that would make him stand out in a negative way among his contemporaries, and given the widespread negativity his very name invokes, I'm surely missing something.

loosechickens
2-4-11, 4:40pm
well, of course, Thomas Sowell and his philosophy and writings are virtually the basis for Justice Thomas's beliefs, so I'm sure that Mr. Sowell has a wonderful opinion of him.

maybe it's Justice Thomas's reverence for Ayn Rand that bugs me....something most people get over in college or shortly afterward, to me especially if they actually study her life instead of just the turgid text of her novels. (sorry if that steps on Ayn Rand admirer's toes, guys....that's just my personal opinion as I examine why I seem to not have respect for this justice.

It's hard not to think that the Bush administration didn't just cast around for "a black person" to replace Thurgood Marshall, as "the ABA rating of Thomas was the least favorable of any confirmed Supreme Court nominee dating back to the Eisenhower administration (most nominees receive unanimous "well qualified" evaluations)", and also, "Thomas had never written a legal book, article, or brief of consequence, and had been a judge for only a year", according to Wikipedia.

Anita Hill did not come forward on her own. She was interviewed by the FBI in preparation for Thomas's nomination, and when the interview was leaked, she was called upon to testify. She was clearly not a person seeking the limelight, then or since.

I think that this (again, from Wikipedia) may touch on some of the reasons so many seem to have a poor opinion of this man, fairly or not:

"Thomas biographer Scott Douglas Gerber has opined that attacks against Thomas from critics such as Jeffrey Toobin have been unusually vitriolic, which Gerber attributes in part to liberals’ disappointment that Thomas has departed so much from the jurisprudence of the African-American whom he succeeded, Thurgood Marshall.[80] Additional possible causes for the harsh criticism of Thomas may be the inherently explosive nature of sexual misconduct accusations, the suspicion among some people that Thomas was less than forthcoming during his confirmation hearings, and the belief in some circles that Thomas has benefited from affirmative action programs like ones he has criticized as a judge."

He has been noted by many to be unusually silent during arguments before the court, and once went four years without asking a single question, which I think has contributed to the feeling that many have that he may not have the "heft" desired on the court. There may be many reasons for his silence, and he's given some explanations for it, but I think, at least in part, his silence, when others of the justices freely question attorneys, has made him look less able.

I have read that Justice Thomas grew up speaking Gullah, and so by college, his speech was unpolished and riddled with grammatical errors. Obviously, that situation has been remedied, but it's possible that he still retains some sensitivity about his speaking abilities and is reticent because of the ridicule he suffered when younger. That seems reasonable to me, and understandable. I grew up with an extremely successful father who had grown up poor and never went to college and who depended on my mother to polish his grammar, and under stress, all his life, he would regress to patterns of speech from his younger years unless he was being very careful of his speech. Perhaps Justice Thomas is similar and prefers to remain silent rather than make some error that people would immediately jump upon.

This, from Wikipedia is part of my deep distrust of this man: "Thomas' wife remained active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and as founder and president of Liberty Central, an advocacy group associated with the Tea Party movement.[160] In January 2011, Common Cause reported that between 2003 and 2007 Clarence Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation, instead reporting "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be reported on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.[161] The following week, Thomas acknowledged he had inadvertently failed to disclose his wife’s income "due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."

Either way, he comes off looking bad. If it was deliberate, he's dishonest, and if a "misunderstanding of the filing instructions", then why would we be trusting him to decide some of the country's most complex cases? I also am concerned about conflict of interest issues.

So.....here's what my feelings are. I don't think they have much to do with his views, although I don't hold the same views as he does, nor do I with Justice Scalia, Justice Alito or Justice Roberts. Hey, I'm not a conservative. What would you expect?

Now....as far as I'm concerned....back to Gabby Gifford. I was pleased to hear that her husband IS going to make his space flight, which makes me believe that she is doing well and progressing nicely, if he feels able to do that.

Alan
2-4-11, 6:12pm
Thanks Loosie for that explanation. It still doesn't explain the many claims of "lack of intelligence", but I can certainly see how the organized opposition to his nomination, the unproven allegations of sexual misconduct and his uncomfortableness with public speaking could cause his opponents to paint him in an unfavorable light, regardless of his actual abilities and character.

I can tell you that I admire the man. I'm hoping to run into him in a Walmart parking lot somewhere in our travels. I'd love to just sit and chat.

Gregg
2-4-11, 8:02pm
He has been noted by many to be unusually silent during arguments before the court, and once went four years without asking a single question...

That is a striking accusation/revelation/claim or whatever it is. I'm nowhere near concerned enough to sit down and read four years worth of SC briefs just to find out, but I am intensely curious to know if there is truth to the statement (not that I regard open sources as suspect, but...).

Alan
2-4-11, 9:52pm
That is a striking accusation/revelation/claim or whatever it is. I'm nowhere near concerned enough to sit down and read four years worth of SC briefs just to find out, but I am intensely curious to know if there is truth to the statement (not that I regard open sources as suspect, but...).

That's actually true. A few years ago, Justice Thomas had this to say about it:

"One thing I’ve demonstrated often in 16 years is you can do this job without asking a single question," he told an adoring crowd at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
The book tour showed that the topic comes up even among friendly audiences. Indeed, Thomas’ comment was provoked by this question: Why do your colleagues ask so many questions?
His response: "I did not plant that question. That’s a fine question. When you figure out the answer, you let me know," he said.

Justice Thomas has said many times that his colleagues ask more than enough questions and that he prefers to digest the give and take.

loosechickens
2-4-11, 10:40pm
Alan, I'd actually love to have the opportunity to sit down and talk to the man, myself. I am always ready to adjust my opinions if new and persuasive evidence comes my way. You asked why, and I tried to search myself and ask where my poor opinion was centered, and tried to examine why I felt so negatively about him, because I knew it wasn't just that he was a conservative, since I have no such feelings about others, equally conservative on the court, and I knew it wasn't because he was black, and I knew it wasn't because of his early life (as I myself am the child of a very much self made man, who started at age 14 bagging groceries in a pre-self service A & P store in West Virginia and ended up a top executive in the company when it was the premier supermarket chain in the country), since I know well that often that is a powerful drive toward success in a way seldom known by those who have a much easier childhood.

And that was the best I could come up with. Hope it helped. Honestly, any more I think I'm more disturbed with the nearly $700,000 in income to his wife from a conservative organization, "mistakenly" not reported, and the very public role of his wife as an advocate for causes and questions that may well come before the court, as it really seems to place his "objectivity" in question.

And, maybe it's because when I was younger, I experienced way more of my share of sexual harassment, so am all too aware of how pervasive it was in those days, and know that several others than Anita Hill had much the same things to say, which sounded WAY too familiar to me. So it's very hard for me not to feel that the "smoke" there indicated some degree of "fire", even if there was no way to prove it.

Alan
2-5-11, 10:06am
Thanks for expounding further Loosie. Given your extensive replies, I can easily see that you have issues with him that are not related to his race or his ideology.
I have no problem with that. The question that I still wonder about is why so many must use other criteria to express their dismissiveness of him.

As you can see from the quotes (from this forum) below, there still seems to be something more in the level of dismissiveness some feel for him and their willingness to single him out of a crowd. If it's not based on race or ideology (and there are several claims against the ideology part), I still can't figure out what it is.



"If I am not mistaken Clarence Thomas has only written on decision and that was probably written by Scalia. Even though in most cases I don't agree with the conservative members of the court I do respect their intellect. Thomas is another case he has no intellect."

"Justice Scalia is a strict Constitutionalist as well, and I don't believe anyone impugns his intellect. Justice Thomas has been a disappointment on the court, as he asks almost no questions, follows Justice Scalia like a lapdog, and has done very little on his own since he was appointed. He's been virtually a nonentity."

"But to say that people dismiss him just because he is a conservative, when no one is dismissing the intellect or ability of Justice Scalia or Justice Roberts, who are easily just as conservative, is disingenuous in the extreme. "



I guess we'll just never know what it is about him that irks people so. Thanks for your efforts though.

Gregg
2-5-11, 10:15am
I'm still a little hung up on four years on the bench without a question. To me that seems extraordinary. My Dad always loved the old saying, "the wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions." I put a fair amount of stock in that idea as well. Of course wisdom and intelligence aren't necessarily on parallel tracks and Justice Thomas hasn't given me any real reason to question his intelligence. Smoke and mirrors won't get you a seat on the SC if you can't argue your way out of a legal paper bag. I do think there are examples of his judgment that are less than exemplary, but I'm sure you could find examples of judgmental errors made by almost any other SC Justice (or President, Senator, Ayatollah, King, Priest, Plumber...human being) so I really don't think that automatically disqualifies the man from service. If nothing else, this thread has shown me that Justice Thomas is a more interesting figure than I had given him credit for.

More on topic with the OP, congratulations to Commander Kelly on his return to space. I truly hope his wife will be able to travel to Florida to watch the launch. That would be cool.

Alan
2-15-11, 12:38pm
Sure, they think he is ignorant. An ignorant you-know-what who is only where he is as a token representative of his race. Because he can't see what whitey and the party of progressives have done for him. He doesn't appreciate their work in his behalf.

Some attitudes never change. But what's astonishing in this video is how many people are coming out as racist. I stopped watching it halfway through, got the message, didn't need to hear another half dozen spouting off the same BS.

The data about Ginsburg is interesting. Wonder if anyone will take that in.

I hate to resurrect commentary on such a depressing yet accurate opinion, but I found this article on Alternet (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/02/12/black-history-month-is-herman-cain-playing-the-race-minstrel-for-cpac/)to be so disgusting and vile and totally in line with your observation. Not only because it was written, but perhaps even moreso because Alternet chose to publish it.

It is a liberal blogger's reaction to hearing businessman Herman Cain's speech at the recent CPAC meeting.

While extreme, I truly believe it reflects the underlying attitudes of many who choose to denigrate black conservatives by any means possible.

bae
2-15-11, 12:46pm
Disgusting.

loosechickens
2-15-11, 1:19pm
You won't get any disagreement from me.....I see pieces like this from AlterNet as being similar to the rantings of Glenn Beck, and whether the crap comes from the far left or the far right, it's still dispicable.

I'm sorry, but I agree with our President. I think we can have very different ideas of what is good for our country and even passionately argue for our views and/or against the views of others, without resorting to this kind of thing.

Often I think it's like people whose language consists mainly of obscenities. It shows more a lack of ability to have the vocabulary or intellect to have a substantive conversation on the issues. It's always easier to denigrate, demonize, namecall.

But this kind of thing crosses the line in the same way that the right wing shock jocks cross the line, and all of us should stand up and point out its unacceptability, no matter where it comes from.

Gina
2-15-11, 1:28pm
He has been noted by many to be unusually silent during arguments before the court, and once went four years without asking a single question...
(I haven't read all the Thomas comments here so forgive me if I've missed something.)

It has now been 5 full years since Thomas has said anything during arguments before the court. To me his silence speaks volumes.

Here is an interesting piece on C. Thomas from FrumForum. The comments there are interesting too.

(FF is the site of David Frum, former W. Bush speach writer. But don't be put off if you are left-leaning. It's not your typical political blog, but more centrist - at least most of the commenters. I've read some of the most interesting discussions there than anywhere else on the net. If you enjoy politics but are totally put off by extremists from both the left and right - check out FrumForum. Some smart, thoughtful people there, esp in the 'comments'. Not the usual knee-jerk, one-liner dog-piles)


http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-silent-for-five-years-on-scotus

"In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, ..."

Alan
2-15-11, 1:29pm
I'm not sure that characterizing this attitude as being similar to "right wing shock jocks" is accurate since I've never heard of any right wing media types espouse such a thing.
Not to say they haven't, I've just not exerienced it.

That said, I do believe that more mainstream generalizations against black conservatives along the lines of "I can't quite put my finger on the reason why, but he just doesn't seem qualified to me" are an extension of the same racist bile in the article. Just not as overt.

loosechickens
2-15-11, 5:21pm
"That said, I do believe that more mainstream generalizations against black conservatives along the lines of "I can't quite put my finger on the reason why, but he just doesn't seem qualified to me" are an extension of the same racist bile in the article. Just not as overt." (Alan)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, it reminds me of the Tea Party types who just can't wrap their minds around the fact that President Obama was elected President, and can only come up with "unqualified, born in Kenya, no birth certificate, Muslim, socialist", etc., that really seems to be an extension of that racial bile, especially connected to the posters of him as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose, or postcards of the White House lawn supposedly now planted in watermelons.

VERY, sad, ignorant and indicative of the very deep racial prejudices in this country, most all of it. Wherever it comes from.

However, in the case of Justice Thomas, I'd like to think that any other justice that couldn't come up with ONE question in his mind that hadn't already been asked by someone else during a five year period on the bench would get the same raised eyebrow from me.

Zigzagman
2-15-11, 7:29pm
I'm not sure that characterizing this attitude as being similar to "right wing shock jocks" is accurate since I've never heard of any right wing media types espouse such a thing.
Not to say they haven't, I've just not exerienced it.

That doesn't surprise me - aren't you from Oklahoma (sorry Buster)?? :laff:


That said, I do believe that more mainstream generalizations against black conservatives along the lines of "I can't quite put my finger on the reason why, but he just doesn't seem qualified to me" are an extension of the same racist bile in the article. Just not as overt.In my case it's simple - they are Republican and stand for everything that goes with that - yea, generalizations!!:confused:

Not to change the subject (from Thomas) but a black American voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. While white people to tend to see the government as their enemy per the Constitution, black people tend to see unregulated capitalism as an exploitative menace that means to subjugate them, and see a progressive government as the only thing that can protect them. Short answer, The Republican Party abandoned black people, therefore black people abandoned it. I don’t blame the black people for making that decision either (Black People: Conservatism & Rock and Roll) :laff:

Peace

Alan
2-15-11, 8:05pm
Well there ya go!

Gregg
2-16-11, 7:36am
Not to change the subject (from Thomas) but a black American voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. While white people to tend to see the government as their enemy per the Constitution, black people tend to see unregulated capitalism as an exploitative menace that means to subjugate them, and see a progressive government as the only thing that can protect them.

Wow. Seriously? Do we want to take it all the way and just change "protect" to "support"? Do that and you've come full circle, or maybe it's half circle, to an elegant form of reverse racism.

Regarding capitalism, why do "unregulated" or "unbridled" or other similar terms seem to keep popping up in criticism from the left side of the debate? To eliminate all regulation is a thought that is only advanced by the most extreme views on the subject. Most (all?) of the conservatives I know are also realistic and understand that oversight and regulation are necessary. They just want it to exist at the minimum effective levels. To continue to infer that large numbers of people want to toss out all regulation is no more helpful than saying liberals want to allow abortions at age 12 without parental consent, as a very few on the very far left do.

Zigzagman
2-16-11, 10:07am
Regarding capitalism, why do "unregulated" or "unbridled" or other similar terms seem to keep popping up in criticism from the left side of the debate?

Why? Look at the results of our financial system after 30 years of de-regulation. Not that hard to see. An even harder task would be to find a sector than has been benefefial to consumers by de-regulation.

To eliminate all regulation is a thought that is only advanced by the most extreme views on the subject. Most (all?) of the conservatives I know are also realistic and understand that oversight and regulation are necessary. They just want it to exist at the minimum effective levels. To continue to infer that large numbers of people want to toss out all regulation is no more helpful than saying liberals want to allow abortions at age 12 without parental consent, as a very few on the very far left do.

Eliminate? Take another look around and you will see that their is not much left to eliminate. As we speak they are fighting to even further reduce the EPA, write legislation even more favorable to financial institutions, allow more domestic drilling without effective safeguards.

As far as racism - I refuse to bite on your circular diversion - facts is facts.

Peace

freein05
2-16-11, 1:27pm
Good news. They said on the news today Gifford is speaking simple words. That is amazing after such a horrible injury.

Gregg
2-16-11, 6:25pm
As far as racism - I refuse to bite on your circular diversion - facts is facts.

Sorry Zig, I didn't mean to sound like I was baiting you for a racism fight. To me comparing modern day capitalism to something like slave trade days (for example) is just not an accurate representation. The assumption that African Americans view it as an "exploitative menace that means to subjugate them" just doesn't stand up with any group I know. I'm lucky to have met quite a few captains of industry over the years and don't know of a single one to whom subjugation of any group is a goal.

Regarding the Republican Party and its supposed abandonment of African Americans, here is what I find... African American populations in the US are mainly concentrated in the Gulf Coast states, Florida and the lower-Atlantic states (the Carolinas and Georgia). If you overlay where that demographic lives with a map showing the results from the latest elections you will see that almost without fail those same states in 2010 either voted in new Republican representatives or retained the ones that were in office. If such a huge number of voters were disenfranchised with the Republican Party, how could that happen? It really couldn't. The election results seem to indicate dissatisfaction with a political party, just not the Republican Party. Here's a little backup...

African American population distribution map:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

House representation map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map_final_results.html

Senate election results map (2010):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_final_results.html

Governors election results map (2010):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/governor/2010_elections_governor_map_final_results.html

Gregg
2-16-11, 6:26pm
Good news. They said on the news today Gifford is speaking simple words. That is amazing after such a horrible injury.

Free, thanks for your gentle and persistent efforts to get this train back on the track. Rest assured, no good deed goes unpunished. ;)

Zigzagman
2-16-11, 7:59pm
That was a very thoughtful post but I think it had an agenda. It seems pretty clear to me that almost all Black people wanted was an equal chance at America - instead of equal education they got Food Stamps and Block Cheese. That is the fault of the Democratic Party. Instead of worrying about poliotical party, I would much prefer to worry about taking care of those that are the least of our society.

Peace

Gregg
2-17-11, 9:09am
I'll be the first to admit that there was/is an underlying agenda. At least part of that agenda is trying to find the truth behind the numbers. Not sure if I'm on the right track or not, but I do know you can't fix something if you don't know what's broke. I'm a capitalist because I truly believe that within that system lies the best chance to provide opportunity to the most people. I'm fairly certain that a lack of opportunity for a lot of people is part of what is broke right now.

I bristle any time the word "equal" pops up because it rarely gets associated with realistic ideas. We've all talked in previous threads about whether or not opportunities of whatever kind need to be equal to all to be valuable. IMO, they don't and even if they did it's probably not something that could be achieved. People have different needs, different situations, different desires: its not one size fits all. What we should do is provide avenues for people to go as far as they want with as few barriers as possible. I think capitalism can do that. Yes, regulations DO need to exist and there does need to be oversight. Its a shame that ethical conduct isn't innate, but its not so our society needs to help protect those who can't fend for themselves. I wouldn't want to do business with anyone who considers that a barrier, but there are other programs less pure in purpose that can be moved out of the way.

When it comes to political parties I think its more than one party abandoning one group. It seems like the two major parties have abandoned all of us Americans. It doesn't matter what color our skin, the parties we put in power are drunk on that power and totally out of touch. The election results I posted are probably a complete flip-flop from previous elections and they may flip over again next year. People don't know who they can trust and seem to just be trying to pick the lesser of the evils. That's a hell of a way to run a country.

Zigzagman
2-17-11, 10:37am
HOUSTON — Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is able to laugh at jokes, recognize visitors and even offer a poignant response when asked recently by her husband how she was doing.


"Better," Giffords said, in one of the first words she uttered since being shot in the head Jan. 8.


Accounts earlier this week showed Giffords has been able to mouth the words to songs such as "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" while responding to several basic verbal commands. "She recognizes everybody".

Peace