Tucson And The Political Debate

Remove all ads!

Many of you may be aware that we have had a tragic, senseless shooting this weekend in Tucson, AZ. Rep. Giffords and 18 others were gunned down in front of a Safeway by a deranged gunman while the representative met with constituents. Six people, including a federal judge, were shot to death and the rest wounded, including the Congresswoman, who took a gunshot wound to the head, but is still alive and doing as well as can be expected:

The shots have echoed through the nation and the country's leadership throughout the entire political spectrum, and the media, are all engaged in doing a bit of soul-searching as a result.

The sheriff also commented:

Of course, the sheriff is being denounced by those who do exactly that: make their living and careers off of inflaming the public for their own personal gain. That can be expected from them.

The interesting point is that some of the politicians themselves (on both sides) are rising above the noise makers and showing remarkable restraint. And some have shown leadership:

That's not true of all of them, but those who are espeically in the media lights are being bit careful with the rhetoric.

Nevetheless, a lot of the political fallout on this tragedy has fallen squarely upon Sarah Palin, who has been using rhetoric such as "reload," "target," "bullseye" to describe poltical action on her facebook page:

And

Now Palin denies they were even "crosshairs:"

yet

But Sarah did not create this political environment, nor is she responsible. She is merely an opportunist who is dipping into a deep, latent problem that runs through the fault lines of American society; a society that along some of those lines reveres and admires voilence, guns, intolerance and hate, yet there are others which desire to be peaceful, moral, tolerant and pluralistic. That's a real problem.

But America has a problem with violence and guns. The answer: Already there are a few nitwit Congressmen who are claiming that they are going to pack their own "heat" for now on. Great solution. So let's have a shoot out in front of a Safeway store on a busy Saturday afternoon and hope the 9-year-olds can duck out of the way, while these "heroes" from the Old West try to save their own worthless hides, and everyone else be damned if they are not armed themselves, or fast enough to duck. Oh, but if all of us have guns won't that scare the crazies away? Did it occur to these geniuses that many of these guys shoot themselves after they have spilled enough of someone else's blood? They don't sound very rational and scared of dying to me. So I guess not.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/palin-staffer-nothing-irrespon.html

One of the most tragic and startling aspects of this is the 9-year-old girl who was killed, Christina Green, who was born on 9/11 and featured in a book that was put together after that tragic event. It was called "Faces of Hope" and it was supposed to be a counter to 9/11. Her birth, her life, was supposed to represent hope, and the future, despite the death and destruction of that infamous day. Those who look for hope and solace in symbols, look elsewhere. People refuse to learn the lessons of history and thusly, "are doomed to repeat them."

The word that comes to my mind is hopelessness. And that's just how I feel this day.

 

What sickens me, that the German media just turns it into a bashing of
some politicians, namely Palin.
Doesn't matter that the murderer wasn't clearly aligned to either of the political sides.

An example of a headline (spiegel.de):
"Debatte um Attentat von Arizona
Sarah Palin im Fadenkreuz"
"Debate about assassination in Arizona
Sarah Palin inside the crosslines"

I was saddened by the story of the young girl as well

 

The leader of Westboro Baptist Church had this "gem" of a comment:

That we would allow such a thing [picketing the funeral of a 9-year-old] does not "speak well of democracy," but it it makes a mockery of it.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40997616/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

It's horrible when people die in this way. When a child dies, it makes it ten times more horrible.

From Palin's fb wall:

I know condolences may be offered not just in the worst case, but your quote implies the worst to me about Giffords with the flown flag on Capitol... and as far as I know (and can't find else), Gabrielle Giffords is alive. I know it would sound so rude to say "correct me if I'm wrong", so I just say: I hope your quote originates from someone who thought she hadn't survived, and actually she lives...

 

Thank you very much for the correction. I had difficulties intepreting that sentence.

 

This is a tragedy, and tragedies bring out both the best and the worst of us. I've been watching the news on this, and participating in the Newsvine comments. Some of them are truely inspiring, while others are... not.

The worst are the ones that blame the political right. They forget that the left has been eager to use target symbology, too. In 2004, it was a Democratic campaign strategy map riddled with targets, with the title "Target Strategy", and the caption "Behind Enemy Lines". They forget the pictures of Bush in the hairs of rifle sights, or of Palin hung in effigy. They blame right wing political rhetoric for this attack, when a friend of the shooter from 2007 described him as a "left-wing pot-head". These are cheap shots for political points while ignoring the reality.

The reality is that this was the result of a deeply troubled mind. This mind was noticed before, in his application to the military, in his schooling, and by his friends; but in our current culture it's pretty much impossible to do anything with someone like this until they actually do something violent. Something like what happened on Saturday.

Thankfully, the Senator has survived thus far. It's pretty amazing that she has survived and is doing so well, considering what happened. Last I heard, the pressure in her brain wasn't increasing, which is a promising sign. My prayers go out for her. Unfortunately, not all the victims of Saturday's tragedy are doing so well. As has been noted, 6 people are dead, including a 9-year-old girl. My prayers go out to their families and friends. There are also several more still in the hospital due to their wounds, though I don't think any of them are considered life-threatening at the moment. My prayers go out to them as well.

Finally, my prayers go out to those heading the political theater today, on the left and the right. I hope they all follow the example of Boehner and Reid. What we need is a moment of grief, a moment of recovery, and then to focus on the real problems that led to this tragedy: mental health and gun control.

Both have been in abysmal states for years, with one being largely ignored and the other being a political chewing toy. For mental health, there is still a lot of paranoia and stigma about the subject. On top of that, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. Some people treat psychologists like gods. Others, especially insurance companies, like the demons. Some judges have gone so far as to knowingly imprison people who have mental problems simply because they'll get more of the help they need inside than out. Meanwhile, both our prisons and our streets are overwhelmed with the mentally ill.

At the same time, our gun control laws are mish-mashed across the States, ranging from the extremes of almost none to laws so extreme that most people can't practically own any kind of firearm. To be perfectly clear, neither of these are acceptable. There is a middle ground, one where most of the mentally ill and many of the criminals are kept away from the guns, while the rest of us have access to guns as safely as we can reasonably allow.

Political rhetoric won't fix these. Neither will paritsan vitrol or hate.

 

It was a tragedy waiting to happen.
The little girl was born on 9/11? Wow.
The term 'sacrificial lamb' springs to mind.

 

Westboro Baptist Church are going to picket the girls funeral?

Good thing they're not just stirring up trouble, isn't it.

 

The Westboro Church are a bunch of bastards - they also picket at soldiers funerals who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose picketing the 9-yr old girl's funeral shouldn't be seen as anything more than sinking to a new low.

Not to derail the topic, but it's cases like these that I cannot totally be against the death penalty. I do think the death penalty is applied too frequently, and it's nearly certain that there have been innocent people wrongfully put to death. But to use it for people like this and their ilk - people like Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) and John Muhammed (Beltway Sniper) - are examples of when I don't have a problem with the death penalty. They are the worst of the worst. If I were the father of that 9-yr old girl, I would feel like justice would not have been served if Loughner got anything less.

 

What does picket cover in this case? Go there with signs and protest? In Europe, I think they would be removed within minutes by the police.

 

I don't know what their beef with the little girl is. While I don't agree with them, at least I can understand what they are trying to protest in picketing soldier's funerals.

The most logical conclusion is they are a bunch of a-holes.

 

No side in the political debate holds the moral high ground in violent imagery in rhetoric. But it's just that -- imagery. I don't believe that there are any elected politicans in the US who want this sort of crap going down in the political arena (or anywhere else in the public sphere).

The Westboro Douchebags are an excellent example of why free speech does require some limits. There are no words that can express how utterly reprehensible their actions are.

 

Sweet Jesus.

I appreciate the knee-jerk impulse you have to declare "both sides do it," but you really need to stop being so disingenuous. Take a look at Gifford's opponent from the last election:



Honest question: Can you tell me which side routinely invokes the Second Amendment and advocates "Second Amendment Solutions" in the very state where the incident occurred? Which side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent rhetoric ("Don't retreat, reload!") and imagery directed at the very victim of this tragedy? Which side has made the rhetoric of "rising up against tyranny" the backbone of its grassroots movement in the last 2 years? Which side’s activists bring guns to peaceful democratic political gatherings? Which side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to convince his viewers that the President is an alien, Nazi, totalitarian menace to the country who must be stopped at all costs? Which side fills talk radio with rage and incendiary falsehoods?

Any non-retarded American knows which side that is; and the two weak, isolated examples of tastelessness on the other side you provided in no way make the two sides equal, or equally responsible for the current state of our discourse. I mean really? The best example you can think of happened in 2004? And the "effigy" guy? Private citizen. Buffoon, yes - but private citizen. There's no comparison.

The right and the left both have bomb throwers and rabble rousers; no one would deny that. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as its thought leaders and cultural heroes, embraced by the leadership - and those blowhards routinely sprinkle their rhetoric with violent terms. Glen Beck, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Is there anyone on the left with equivalent popularity and influence who so casually and regularly invokes violence? Can you name ONE?

But that isn't even the real issue. The fact that people are criticizing right wing rhetoric doesn’t mean they’re “blaming” them for the Arizona shooting; Loughner alone pulled the trigger. But to deny that the right has gone too far in recent years is to deny reality. No one is saying that Loughner opened fire on Giffords because Sarah Palin put a target next to her name on a map. But you know what, NOG? It didn't f'ing help. Certain things contribute to an atmosphere in which violence becomes more likely. The right should take just a smidgen of responsibility for that.

 

Something for all those "armed citizens" out there to consider:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slatecom/

 

Not as lucky as the guy he almost shot...

 

And since when was being a combat veteran, and proud of it, anything wrong? And disingenuous? Need I remind you there was a movie made about assassinating President Bush? I think that alone goes far above anything else that's been seen.

I have actually only heard Sharron Angle use that, and I agree it was vastly unacceptable when she did.

One, it was Obama who said, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun", and two, it was a Democrat who used shooting targets for his political campaign map in 2006. If Palin is evil and violent for these things, then so are many other politicians, left and right.

Do you remember anything from the Bush years? Do you remember Rachael Maddow? I'm not claiming the Right has never used violent imagery. I'm claiming that both sides have used it for years, and for the Left (or at least elements thereof, there are also elements of the Left that call doing this idiocy) to suddenly call the Right on it, and try to blame them for this tragedy, is hypocracy of the highest order, and blatantly using a national tragedy to try and score political points.

Two weak examples? I don't think so. You're rose-coloring a lot of history if you think that's the case.

Well, Rachael Maddow certainly seems to be popular. And what ever happened to that concern about private citizens being a different matter?

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik certainly is. Rep. Brad Sherman sure comes close. Apparently Rep. Jim Clyburn thinks this is a good reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Your post is strongly hinting that you think that atmosphere contributed to the violence that actually happened. I will tell you right now that that is bull$%^&. I've seen this guy's Youtube page. He was beyond reason. He was beyond speeches and commercials. My guess is schizophrenia, but he is definitely filtering all perception of the world through something so thick that nothing comes out even recognizable as what it went in as.

If all you're saying is that you don't like the way the political rhetoric has gone, I agree with you, but it didn't start with conservative opposition to Obama. It didn't start with liberal opposition with Bush. I don't know where it started, but I'm pretty sure it was before I was born. If that's all you're trying to say, then stop singling out the right and, more importantly, pick a better time to bring it up. You know, I hate all the abortions going on in this country, too, but it has $%^& to do with this tragedy and trying to twist this into point-scoring on that issue is heartless in the extreme. That is what many on the Left have done, and that is what makes me really sick. Much more sick than any violent imagery anyone has used. These people are using actual violence for nothing more than political points.

For the record, I genuinely believe this man suffers from a severe mental illness. Again, this is only a guess, but from the reports of a severe change around 17 years old and a look at his Youtube page (which shows coherant thought, if not at all connected to reality), I suspect something like schizophrenia. If this is the case, then in all honesty there's a good chance that even Jared Loughner isn't responsable for his actions.

 

It's not - but use your head, please. Why isn't he in his dress uniform then? Look at the ad. Fatigues, sunglasses, macho pose, machine gun in his crotch. What kind of message do you think he's trying to communicate with that photo? It ain't "gosh, I'm sure proud of my service."

Need I remind you it was made by Britons and irrelevant to what we're talking about?

One, it was Al Capone (played by DeNiro) who said that in the Untouchables, not Obama. "Bring a knife to a gun fight" or it's derivatives is a very common turn of phrase. Two, I never said they were evil, but irresponsible. Furthermore, you're ignoring how rare it is for a Democrat to use such imagery. The fact that you need to go back to 2006 to find a single example of a Democrat using such imagery - and I could pull dozens of examples of Republicans doing it from the last election cycle alone - should show you how utterly weak your position is.

I don't know what awful thing she did that you're referring to. Please reference.

You're welcome to try to prove me wrong. Compile a list of your top 5 all-time worst examples of Democrats (post-Carter era) using violent rhetoric and/or imagery, and we'll see how they compare to Republican ones of the last few years. This should be fun.

And yes, your examples were very weak. Comparing the actions of some idiot private citizen in California (can you even tell me his name without looking it up?) who hung an effigy on his own property to the actions of a career politician who was almost the god damn VP of the United States is hardly a fair comparison. It's flat out stupid.

Oh bugsh*t. Dupnik made no direct connection between hateful rhetoric and the shooter. But he did reference the climate of hatred that’s been stirred up in Arizona lately, which anyone who's been paying attention is well aware of. In fact, he's never specifically pointed the finger at any specific political party or group, so it's telling to me that it's conservatives who are getting so defensive when someone asks that the overheated rhetoric be dialed down a notch. It's his office that has to deal with the broken windows, death threats, etc. that have come out of the woodwork since the immigration law controversy came about. He's speaking from pretty solid ground, here.

Finally, I'm not saying Loughner isn't a very disturbed individual. That is obvious. But when you try to murder a congressperson, it's a political act. His true motivations are still very much in doubt, and we may never know the whole story. But where there's smoke, there's fire - and it doesn't take a big leap to see how the one state that is currently swimming in overheated political rhetoric - rife with imagery and words that can easily be construed as a literal call to violence - could become an environment where the most unstable among us can snap. It doesn't have to be a direct cause to have an effect. In a climate where claims of treason, tyranny, and allying with America's enemies on the part of Democrats are not only common, but encouraged, it may result in...oh, I don't know, armed paranoid skizophrenics who already think the government is out to get them deciding to take matters into their own hands. This rhetoric is destructive enough when it's one in ingredient in a recipe for disaster. It doesn't have to be the whole meal.

And I'll continue to single out the right until they no longer deserve the lion's share of the criticism for this particular tactic, thanks. You have a real problem with false equivelance if you can't see that.

 

My guess? The combat fatigues have become an iconic image in and of themselves that is much more effective than a dress uniform.

There were also at least two books. Both of the ones I know about were written in American.

And apparently it was her father who taught her the 'Don't retreat, reload' phrase as a way of telling her to stick to her ideals. And if you want common, well, not turns of phrase, but symbolism, look no further than using targets or sights to identify groups that you're targetting... for persuasion. Funny how context is always available to diffuse these 'incendiary comments' and the like.

Not really. 2006 and 2008 (there were examples from there as well) were the last times the Dems really pulled out all the stops on their campaigns. For 2010, it was the Republicans that did it, which is why they have so many examples recently. (they also did it in 2008). 2-4 years ago is not very long ago. Now, if I had to go back to Vietnam to show the left using violent imagery, you'd have a point. Most of the people who did that then are probably dead now, or at least retired.

I'll get back to you on that.

You're right. It is. It's stupid to think that politicians, who are known for going above and beyond, for exagerating, and for employing any symbolism they can come up with, all to get more votes, would be criticized for exactly that, while at the same time a private citizen feels his need to express himself in such indefensibly violent imagery. Now, of course, he has free speech, and the right to express himself, but so do the politicians. The politicians, however, are actually expected to go all out to do so, while private citizens are usually chastized for doing so (as this guy was, by other citizens).

No, instead he took a police press conference designed solely to distribute facts on the case and decided to bring up the 'vitriolic rhetoric', then say that the man is most likely mentally ill, and then make the connection that those who are mentally ill are mure susceptible to such 'vitriolic rhetoric'. No, he clearly doesn't believe that there's any actual connection between the two.

Umm, no it's not. And this is exactly the kind of faulty reasoning that I'm objecting to. If you look in the past, especially the past 30-40 years, many political assassination attempts have not been political. Someone kills someone else because Marylin Manson told him to in his sleep. Another because he's trying to impress some actress. To assume that, just because the target existed in the political world, this means the attack was political is nonsense. History proves you quite wrong. And, if I'm right on his diagnosis, this guy didn't 'snap'. He was long gone well before this.

And this is where I conclude you don't know what you're talking about. And I don't mean to be insulting or overly dismissive about this, but you clearly don't. Mental illnesses like this don't work that way. The man may choose a particular target off of something seen on TV or the like, but he's not driven to act by it. If it wasn't that person, it'd be someone else. Maybe the next political commercial coming on TV that mentions Medicair. Maybe the name you could spell by re-arrainging the letters on his street sign. You can't censor people for what crazy people may be inspired to do in response, and the reason is simple: crazy people can be inspired to do anything, by anything. You'd end up censoring all human speech and imagery if you tried that.

 

An important point here ... Tucson is pronounced too-sahn.

Just wanted to make sure none of you were pronouncing it tuck-son.