Shooting of Congresswoman in Tucson

Post by **halplm** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:40 pm

So what, she's just supposed to silently accept people blaming her for some nutcase blowing people away?

I've struggled since I read this stupid thread about how to say what the obvious truths are about the moronic response to this massacre that I've been reading and hearing all over the place. Every time I wrote a reply I found it inadequate and pointless as it failed to express what I wanted to say.

Sure enough, I found Sarah Palin's statement to be precisely what I had been trying to say, and much more eloquent than I am capable of.

So take care in your references to Governor Palin's remarks, as they are what I wanted to say. As I am apparently clueless and self absorbed, I'm sure I fail to understand anything that is being said here and will refrain from responding IN KIND.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:02 pm

You're better than that, Hal.

Post by **River** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:02 pm

Good grief, does she even know what "blood libel" is??

Anyway, in time-honored tradition, the journalists are now exploring a link between Loughner's violence and his taste in music. This song in particular (should be SFW - language is clean, imagery is a little creepy but not grotesque or pornographic, but you might want to have headphones in if you don't want everyone else to know you're listening to a Rage Against the Machine knock-off).

Post by **vison** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:07 pm

It seems pretty clear that she doesn't know what "blood libel" means. Or maybe she does, and really believes herself to be a victim on that level.

There is, of course, the distinct possibility that she didn't write that screed all by herself. Generally these people have assistants. Be that as it may, just as Mr. Reagan said so clearly and truthfully, each person must take responsibility for her own actions. So if she puts that out under her name, she is responsible for what it says.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:09 pm

Humans want to bring order to random events by assigning a plausible cause to them. It's how our minds work; we feel safer if we "know" why something tragic happened, because we believe that means it won't happen to us.

Violent rhetoric, wherever it occurs, degrades political discourse. Decent forums don't tolerate it; it's a banning offense on most liberal blogs I read, and certainly isn't permitted here. It is not a trivial problem, and it is not wrong to call it out when it occurs. Claiming victimization because one is called out for it is a sad attempt to evade the issue.

However, I think it's also wrong to say with certainty that violent rhetoric (or rock music, or marijuana, or whatever your particular choice may be) caused an insane person to commit an insane act. It may possibly have suggested the target he chose. But Laughner pulled the trigger, and if it hadn't been at Rep. Giffords, it would probably (eventually) have been at some other target suggested by his various obsessions.

Post by **halplm** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:22 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:Humans want to bring order to random events by assigning a plausible cause to them. It's how our minds work; we feel safer if we "know" why something tragic happened, because we believe that means it won't happen to us.

"plausible cause" is irrelevant when ACTUAL cause is obvious. The desire to assign blame to persons and ideologies that one dislikes is not how all people's minds work, it is only how selfish and ignorant people's minds work, because they think no one is personally responsible for their actions.

Violent rhetoric, wherever it occurs, degrades political discourse.

Violent rhetoric is not used by any current popular political people (except perhaps Obama on the campaign trail). Saying you're going to "target" various candidates in a campaign year is not violent rhetoric... unless you want to pin the blame for mass murder on someone you dislike.

Decent forums don't tolerate it; it's a banning offense on most liberal blogs I read, and certainly isn't permitted here. It is not a trivial problem, and it is not wrong to call it out when it occurs. Claiming victimization because one is called out for it is a sad attempt to evade the issue.

Observing the insanity of blaming political opponents rather than the guy that planned and executed a crime is not claiming victimization. It is observing that politicizing tragedy is not only a sad attempt at libel, it is evil.

However, I think it's also wrong to say with certainty that violent rhetoric (or rock music, or marijuana, or whatever your particular choice may be) caused an insane person to commit an insane act. It may possibly have suggested the target he chose. But Laughner pulled the trigger, and if it hadn't been at Rep. Giffords, it would probably (eventually) have been at some other target suggested by his various obsessions.

No one is responsible but those that are guilty by their actions.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:33 pm

halplm wrote:
Violent rhetoric, wherever it occurs, degrades political discourse.
Violent rhetoric is not used by any current popular political people (except perhaps Obama on the campaign trail). Saying you're going to "target" various candidates in a campaign year is not violent rhetoric... unless you want to pin the blame for mass murder on someone you dislike.

Here's a partial list of violent and insurrectionist rhetoric and violent acts from June 2008 until last week, with links to original sources.

Edited to correct dates

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:39 pm

I have no problem with Sarah Palin's statement.

I do not think Ms. Palin was in any way "responsible" for the shooting in Tuscon.

However.

I do think that putting up a map which targets people you disagree with using cross-hairs similar to those on a gunsight is an ugly way to disagree. I thought so at the time the map went up, and I still think so.

I also think that it is disingenuous in the extreme to state that said cross-hairs were meant to be "surveyor's marks."

I think that the political discourse in this country has become very ugly indeed. It is rife with violent imagery and the idea that if you disagree with someone politically, that person is one step away from being the Devil himself. That people who disagree with you should (perhaps metaphorically) be hurt, killed or destroyed. That it is impossible for two good people to simply have opposing viewpoints. That it is impossible to simply...well, disagree.

Post by **River** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:45 pm

Loughner is currently being held without bail and is going to face both federal and state charges for murder and attempted murder. He is not at present being cooperative with the cops and so, in absence of a statement from him regarding his motivations, all anyone has to go on is statements from his family and friends and teachers and writings and videos found in his home and on the internet. The federal prosecutors have hinted they will seek the death penalty; no idea as yet what the AZ prosecutor's have in mind. Loughner's obvious recourse is to attempt an insanity plea, but Congress tightened up the requirements on that after Reagan got shot and he might not be able to swing it. He is hardly getting away scot-free. He is hardly blameless. But there's a reason why someone targets someone else and decides to wipe them off the earth. It doesn't have to be a sound, rational reason, but it doesn't just happen out of the clear blue sky.

I'm not convinced that political rhetoric had much sway over him because I'm not convinced his mind was functioning at a level where he could understand it. From what I've gleaned so far, he really was completely cracked, right down the center. He had a family, he had friends, but it sounds like he alienated them all as he got sicker and sicker. He was fond of making if-then logic statements, but his premises were false and even if they weren't the logic still just wasn't there. But he just didn't see that, at all. I don't think he went after Giffords because she was in Plain's crosshairs. I think he went after her because she was local and she made a point of making herself accessible and because at one of her events in the past he submitted a completely nonsensical question to her that she didn't answer and he hated her for that. And then, because he didn't fit the Brady bill criteria, he was able to buy a gun.

Be that as it may, the political rhetoric in this country does need a giant chill pill. Slogans like "Don't retreat, reload" are not and never have been conducive to civil and spirited discourse. At best, they're just facile and silly. At worst, they come off as bullying.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:42 pm

Prim, I think someone's been fooling with that Wikipedia entry. It looked really bizarre to me.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:46 pm

I looked at the history, and you're right. It looks OK at the moment, but people have been adding references to Sarah Palin, sometimes randomly, and they're then being deleted. They will probably lock it down soon.

Post by **vison** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:01 pm

River wrote:Be that as it may, the political rhetoric in this country does need a giant chill pill. Slogans like "Don't retreat, reload" are not and never have been conducive to civil and spirited discourse. At best, they're just facile and silly. At worst, they come off as bullying.

Exactly.

In the days when you got a newspaper in the morning and maybe listened to a radio newscast after dinner or in your car, it was different. Now it's at you 24/7, and I am convinced that listening to this stuff all the time does no one any good.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:01 pm

In related news, there's a move to remove Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the next DSM.

Post by **River** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:04 pm

Post by **N.E. Brigand** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:20 pm

halplm wrote:I've struggled since I read this stupid thread about how to say what the obvious truths are about the moronic response to this massacre that I've been reading and hearing all over the place.

Hal, why do you find this thread stupid? I think that less than half of the posts here have been on the question of whether Loughner was influenced by Palin's campaign advertisement, and most of those have argued that he was not, or that his influences remain unknown. I don't think anyone here blamed Palin for Loughner's actions, beyond a very few suggesting, rather tentatively, an indirect connection, in that her rhetoric may have added to a generally overheated atmosphere.

As for the media generally, since Saturday evening, every story about Loughner's motivations that I've seen has been clear that he seems to hold no coherent philosophy. Sure, initially the connection to Palin's crosshairs ad was considered, but it would have been irresponsible for journalists to have ignored it, given that Giffords herself had responded to the ad around the time of its initial appearance with the suggestion that it went beyond decent bounds.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:28 pm

River wrote:Why?

The possible reasons I've seen:

A) It's untreatable by medication, so it's not covered by insurance. The DSM is ultimately for insurance companies.
B) It's ubiquitous. This would be the relevant meaning in this discussion.

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:29 pm

N.E. Brigand wrote:
halplm wrote:I've struggled since I read this stupid thread about how to say what the obvious truths are about the moronic response to this massacre that I've been reading and hearing all over the place.
Hal, why do you find this thread stupid?

Selective reading? Only a couple posts have suggested anything other than "Palin is not responsible".

Post by **N.E. Brigand** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:08 pm

Now, as to Palin's remarks, they begin quite well, and I concur with her general sentiment, and am particularly in agreement with her that the kind of law suggested by Rep. Brady (of which I was unaware before reading Palin's speech) should be opposed.

A few other points in Palin's comments are worth some further examination.

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them

As Gregg Knaus has written, "I think Sarah Palin just endorsed a mosque near Ground Zero."

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future.

Presumably not just the last one!

President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

I'm glad that Palin is denouncing those who claim that Obama's victory was illegitimate.

But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

As others have already noted (and setting aside the matter of whether "blood libel" is an appropriate term here), this statement undermines Palin's whole point. If Palin's remarks, and those uttered on "talk radio" that she earlier mentioned, are not responsible for inciting hatred and violence, then neither are those of "journalists and pundits".

In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government.

The question is: was the crosshairs ad "civil"?

And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Does Palin believe that Giffords, in questioning the appropriateness of the crosshairs-ad, was trying to muzzle her, or not?

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Does this mean that Palin condemns the Bush administration for reacting too strongly to 9/11 and approving torture (and the Obama administration for not prosecuting it)?

Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:16 pm

Thanks for breaking down the statement point by point, N.E.B. There are some remarkably provocative statements in there that certainly could be interpreted as challenging much that conservative doctrine holds dear. Particularly the first and last points you cite.

Post by **Holbytla** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:41 pm

I give Sarah Palin all the credit in the world for continually getting people to listen to her and find her relevant. About halfway (less) through McCain's campaign I took her for what she was and for what she was doing and totally tuned her out. I'd sooner listen to Ron Popeil pitch me a gadget at 3 am, than listen to a word from her mouth.