Shooting of Congresswoman in Tucson

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

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.

Violent rhetoric has been a part of political discourse for ages. Pretending we are particularly more violent than in ages past is historically inaccurate.

The 99.99% of people who see crosshairs on a political map understand in less than a second what it means. It is theoretically possible that an unstable person might look at that and decide to shoot (although it has become apparent that nothing Palin said influenced this particular nut) but I think it would be rather poor of us to hold our speech hostage to what how unstable person might maybe possibly misinterpret it.

[vison]

She could have used a frowny face. She didn't have to use "crosshairs".

Of course she shouldn't have her little website censored. The more of this stuff she does, the better I like it.

No exposure so revealing as self-exposure.

[Primula Baggins]

C_G, murder is nothing new in human history either, and yet somehow that doesn't seem to mean we shrug and accept it. Or to accept heavy-handed h hints ("those Second Amendment remedies") and even over-the-top threats of violence (not from Palin, but from some others) as just part of the political routine.

[halplm]

C_G, murder is nothing new in human history either, and yet somehow that doesn't seem to mean we shrug and accept it. Or to accept heavy-handed h hints ("those Second Amendment remedies") and even over-the-top threats of violence (not from Palin, but from some others) as just part of the political routine.

You are equating speech you don't like to murder.

Without complete free speech, there is no free speech. Without free speech, there is no freedom at all.

[yovargas]

[Primula Baggins]

You are equating speech you don't like to murder.

Um, no. I'm saying neither murder nor speech that calls for violence is a good thing. Murder is worse.

And all kinds of speech is not free. If I slander someone, or cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example, I may get in considerable trouble. Speech that causes harm is not free.

All I'm saying (and I'm far from alone in this) is that our society might be better off if speech that has a fair chance of causing harm were not plastered all over the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet, and that a responsible citizen might consider restraining herself from doing this just as she restrains herself from other irresponsible and possibly harmful acts.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

C_G, murder is nothing new in human history either, and yet somehow that doesn't seem to mean we shrug and accept it.

I agree, that when someone actually does something that should not be accepted with a shrug. But that is not what I wrote about. I'm writing about political speech.

[River]

With freedom comes responsibility. No one, AFAIK, is writing new laws or calling for new laws restricting speech. All that's happening so far is a push towards maybe considering the impact of, say, putting crosshairs over someone's congressional district and similar crap. You know that old saying "Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear"? It would be a useful thing for everyone to keep in mind when discussing politics. Being all divisive and inflammatory is great for garnering ratings, selling ad time, and making sure you're so over-exposed the only people who don't know your name are people who've been living under rocks, but it's not that great for the national psyche or even furthering discussion. I also find such tactics alienating and annoying. I find plays to emotion cheap and tacky, manipulative and nasty. I despise it when it's tried on me. I pity those that fall for it. I rapidly lose respect for people who pitch emotional arguments at me, as if they can circumvent my mind via my soft heart. And that is why I can't stand what passes for political "discourse" in this country, why I welcomed Stewart's failed bid to return to sanity, and why I welcome the current push away from emotion in the public discourse right now. Of course, it'll fail because sooner or later someone with a lot to lose by being more measured in their tone is going find it useful to confuse "Let's be responsible" with "They're trying to take our freedom!" and whip up a nice emotional frenzy, but it'll be fun for me while it lasts.

[vison]

Excellent post, River.

Well, if the magnetic field reverses (as it's expected to, any minute) there will be lot of EMG trouble and the internet and the TV might be inoperative for a time and people might get used to the silence and say, "Hey, isn't this nice?"

Or not, I guess.

I think people get caught up in the rushrushrush panic to be informed and up to date and they confuse "news" with "information" and I really don't, all joking aside, see any end to it. If people don't voluntarily ramp it down, it won't happen.

[Holbytla]

In an addendum to my previous post, I would like to state that Sarah Palin is still more likeable to hear than some.

[Infidel]

"It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

He was speaking to women, too.

I don't "blame" Mrs. Palin for the events in Tucson. I am not convinced that she and her ilk really bear any responsibility for that. But evidently she thought she might be, otherwise why the rush to remove those crosshairs?

There was no 'rush to remove those crosshairs', as I noted on page 2 in response to the someone else advancing that claim. Neither Palin nor Daily Kos removed the imagery:

Update: Sarah Palin and Daily Kos Have Not “Scrubbed” Posts With “Target” Imagery of Giffords’ District
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarahpac ... t-remains/

Feel free to spread that around to others you read saying the same thing....

[SirDennis]

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."

Unlikely.

[yovargas]

Of course, it'll fail because sooner or later someone with a lot to lose by being more measured in their tone is going find it useful to confuse "Let's be responsible" with "They're trying to take our freedom!" and whip up a nice emotional frenzy, but it'll be fun for me while it lasts.

I just wanted to highlight that again.




Politics are disgusting.

[Infidel]

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

I'm fairly certain Alan Dershowitz does:

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.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... hs_in.html

[River]

So widespread I've only ever seen it used in the context of discussing anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages.

[Primula Baggins]

From President Obama's remarks at the memorial service in Tucson today:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

[vison]

yovargas if you give up on politics because it's "disgusting", you leave the field for disgusting people doing disgusting things.

Politics is the art of the Possible. The more good people involved, the better the possibilities.

You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but it leaves your tender bits pretty much exposed.

edited to add: Mr. Obama is a calm and rational man. He leads by example.

[Primula Baggins]

There was no 'rush to remove those crosshairs', as I noted on page 2 in response to the someone else advancing that claim. Neither Palin nor Daily Kos removed the imagery:

Update: Sarah Palin and Daily Kos Have Not “Scrubbed” Posts With “Target” Imagery of Giffords’ District
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarahpac ... t-remains/

Feel free to spread that around to others you read saying the same thing....

There was no target imagery on Daily Kos. That image was Photoshopped on top of the original Daily Kos text by a conservative blog and then widely copied. The original post, unchanged, is here.

An additional note: as someone who's read Daily Kos fairly often for a while, I must say that they CAN'T put graphics into posts in the way that was reproduced. They're actually quite primitive, graphically. I never thought it was real for a second, because it's beyond the capabilities of their software.

Edit: The faked post is the third image down here.

[vison]

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse.

Where? Mr. Dershowitz must have his reasons for making that assertion, but those reasons aren't obvious to me and he is wrong anyway. It does not have "a broad metaphorical meaning" at all, but remains pretty specific to its original use.

Mrs. Palin made a very grave error with both the tone and the timing of her comments - grave as far as her hopes of being seen as a serious politician. She did not even mention the names of those killed but repeatedly presented herself as the victim.

I repeat that I do not believe that she or her kind were responsible for the events in Tucson, but for her to do the precise thing she is accusing others of doing, playing "the blame game", is typical of her. Her lack of compassion and empathy is really astonishing.

[halplm]

Sarah Palin was a victim. Within hours of the massacre, she was being blamed for murder.

She did not blame anyone for the murders. She responded to accusations that she and others completely unrelated to the crime were responsible.

It's completely disingenuous to say her statement was anything but a response to the asinine accusations being made by countless figures in the media and the political arena.

Unless, of course, you want to say she has made a grave error with the tone and timing of her comments... because you don't like her and want to twist everything she says or does into something you can feel comfortable looking down your nose at.

But then again, I'm not really capable of understanding what's said around here so I'm sure I got it wrong.