Tucson And The Political Debate

Remove all ads!

Ok then I apologize. Didn't mean to misinterprete.

 

Ok. No hard feelings here either, Hannibal, and I did not mean to be overly agressive. I was hoping you could give us a German perspective [I'm thinking you are in Germany] of the difference in culture. For instance, would your Congressmen carry their own guns for self-protection at an event - as a solution? Or do they see the need to arm themselves at all at a public event?

 

Maybe the statistics of 90% comes from statistics that say there are so many personally owned guns in the US that 0.9 guns per 1 person on average is the ratio (in that case, though, 90% is not really apt, "9 guns per 10 people" would be better).

On the other hand, the problem I assume is not just that many people own guns, but that -- if you don't have own -- getting a gun is easy and does not need much effort generally. In Europe, in many places, the fastest way to get one would probably be illegal, so it's not that easy.

Hard to change on traditions, I guess. And the whole case would have to be examined as a complex matter (something I can't do, obviously), e.g. if there were much stricter federal gun policies in the US, how would that affect public security/safety (as we know, in Europe, people rely on police and other armed organizations, and it works in most cases). Something that the PEOPLE wouldn't want to accept ("To be able to defend ourselves is our constitutional right ") is practically impossible to introduce.

 

No. It's semantics when you focus on a few isolated examples and think it proves an equal share of this kind of rhetoric on both sides. I have never said that the left never employs rhetoric like this. My point was the right does it far more often and are far more comfortable with it. Exponentially so, in fact. They have made military macho posturing a part of their very brand in a way the Democrats never have or would. What you don't seem to get is that I agree that every example you provided is valid (except the "uncle tom" one). What you also don't get is that every example you provided is an exeption to typical Democrat rhetoric, NOT the rule. For every example you can find of the left doing this (and it often loses them support on the left), I can find 10 of the right doing it (and it all but guarantees support on the right). Do you get it now? A town with 1 murder a year and a town with 10 a year are not "equally dangerous."

And it isn't just about the imagery of guns and targets, which isn't nearly as dangerous as talk of "socialists" setting up "death panels," to give you just one example. If you convince enough people that Democrats are not just bad, but an enemy of the American way, setting up a system that could kill them, the irrational hatred will take care of itself and, yes, can potentially lead to violence*. This is a very, very simple concept you seem utterly incapable of grasping, so I'm simply not engaging you on this point anymore.

When you claim a film maker (who you didn't seem to realize wasn't even American) makes a documentary several years ago exploring the hypothetical assassination of a current president and I tell you it's irrelevant to the discussion (since we're talking about what actual American political operatives are doing right now), and you reply with "uh, but there were also two books in America," you are engaging in semantics and ignoring the larger point by focusing on distractions. You buttress irrelevance with MORE irrelevance. It's infuriating, and you do this all the time, hence the nickname.** Comparatively speaking, your examples - while admittedly valid - were weak in comparison to what I was talking about. And that's just one example of you doing that.

And speaking of books - if you want to compare the number (and popularity) of inflammatory books written by the American left and right, have at it - you'll lose that one, too.

Are you really too stupid to see that that was a joke? One I told at my own expense? Christ on crutches.

Except that isn't what Blood Libel is. Sarah Palin is trying to turn it into that, but she is indeed misusing the term, and so are you.

*Before you say I am, I'm not claiming this was the direct cause of the Arizona incident - just stating a fact.

** Oh, and when I and others call you NOGfflinger, it's not because we're confusing anything. It's because you're being every bit as hard-headed, short-sighted and fact-allergic as he was. But it doesn't help matters, so I won't do it anymore.

 

I am not blase about tragedies like this. My point is that they are not limited to the US -- Canada is not the idyllic paradise you insinuate, we had the shootings at Taber soon after Columbine, Marc Lepine slaughtered several women in Quebec, 4 cops were slaughtered about 200km from where I live, I could go on about Canada. Other countries that are not in the throes of civil war have had incidents as well, IIRC there are incidents even in places like Sweden that are held up as examples of totally peaceful places.

None of what I am saying minimizes the horrid nature of such events. What I am saying is that no one group, no one country, no one religion, no one political philosophy, no one anything is to blame for the actions of the few people who become so lost in their minds that they feel the need to go kill a whole bunch of people. It can -- and has -- happened anywhere. It has happened many times before. God help us, it will happen again despite our best efforts. This is not to say we shouldn't put our best efforts forward. But those best efforts do not include, IMHO, knee jerk finger pointing at people we happen to despise. There must be some evidence of actual causation or incitement before we start saying anyone bears even the tiniest bit of responsibility. I see no causation yet in this case.

 

It would be difficult but possible for them to get eventually a licence if they could prove they are in immediate danger. Maybe Ragusa can say something more specific concerning our laws.
But in most cases they would simply engage a bodyguard (or they are assigned one) if one is needed.

My feeling about that is, and others might differ, on the one hand it is kind of
relaxing in knowing that not every random person can carry a gun.
On the other hand, I'm clearly aware, that anyone who is willing to harm can get a gun illegally without any bigger problems.
So it is not this much a problem of people carrying a gun but who is willing to abuse its power beyond self-defense.
And abusive people are all over our world no matter the regional laws.

But I realize that the inhibition threshold to do harm is lower when already wielding a gun.

 

That is probably accurate. Given that most gun owners own multiple guns, I can certainly see that there may very well be 9 guns for every 10 people in the US. But I maintain that there are relatively few people in the US that own just a single firearm. Far more common is that you either own more than one, or none at all.

I do think this point in the debate cannot be overlooked however - as the link that CtR posted a few pages back states, when Obama says things like, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" - or something to that effect - he is speaking metaphorically. When Sharron Angle speaks of "2nd amendment solutions" she is speaking literally.

There is only one party where its supporters show up at town hall meetings with rifles slung over their shoulders, or their handguns in plain view, holstered on their hips. There is only one party that the NRA supports every single election because of their stance on gun ownership and gun control (or lack thereof). IMO, that counts for something.

 

Exactly. Thank you Aldeth and CtR.

 

In Europe, people who need protection usually get bodyguards and -- depending on who he is -- an armoured car (in Central Europe, an armoured Mercedes, usually). About public events, the people who can enter the scene of the event are checked.

I'm sure it is the same in the USA too with the President and probably with high-ranking politicians (i.e. not just the environment is checked beforehand, but also every person who enters the public event is checked before entering). Nonetheless, while I don't know the story of Gifford's campaign event, I heard she got some threats beforehand, so wouldn't it have been wise to apply some basic check on those who entered the event?

I know politicians prefer to make a friendly atmosphere by making open events in public places, but considering we are in USA, they will have to take risk of getting shot then...

 

Just watched Obama's speech last night on the shooting. It's his best speech I've heard from him in quite some time.

Linky

 

Are you really saying that the USA doesn't have a problem with gun violence that is not typically found in other "normal" countries? Really? Do we have to go over this point by point? Make no mistake we will go there.

I realize it does happen in other countries, LKD. I'm not nearly as ill-informed and close-minded as you would like to portray. But no other advanced, industrialized country has the problems with guns and violence as the US.

Let's start by comparing gun laws. How well do you think your Canadian laws would go over with the NRA and your preferred party here in the US?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47401_Page2.html

Yeah, it must be nice up there with all your restrictions on guns and low gun violence and say that we are over-reacting to having 9-year-olds gunned down in front of supermarkets, or 9 and 11-year olds shooting up their own classmates. Yeah, I live HERE instead.

 

I just tracked down the text of the speech and am highly impressed. Lines like this:

and this:

reminded me of how much I respect Obama and his efforts to build consensus. I wish more people in politics would try to build consensus. That doesn't just apply to American politics, either, I mean universally.

Edit: I never once said that anyone was overreacting to the shooting. My God, I have a heart! What I did say was that assigning blame to the talking heads was an unfair response to the tragedy. Nor did I say that the US doesn't have a problem with violence. I did say that they don't have a lock on it.

 

Yes, I read these comments today regarding Obama's speech:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

Edit: Peace, LKD.

 

I haven't read Palin's words or seen her video, but I would hazard they are highly defensive. Understandable from a personal human point of view -- if someone accused me of being responsible for these shootings I'd feel defensive too -- but from a leadership and humanitarian perspective a big mistake. She should have focussed on the victims and consensus building as Obama did. Risen above petty snipes. Not an easy thing to do when you feel attacked, but the decent thing to do nonetheless.

 

It's already been answered, but just to repeat it - I was talking about guns per 100 people, not about the percentage of people with guns. Ie. It's the number of guns privately owned divided by the population. Of course this data can be distorted by people owning multiple guns.

 

Nice one, LKD. I agree.

 

LKD, DR, I agree. Three points:

#1 Unsurprisingly, sharper minds than Palin get their message better than she does with her 'blood libel' nonsense. Take conservative direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie - I Appeared with Rep. Giffords Ten Days Ago:

Spoiler

#2 Fearing tea party violence, four Arizona Republicans resign

Spoiler

It illustrates graphically that reckless talk about 'getting' people not only apparently resonates with the nuts on the fringe, but has harmful effect even if no one gets shot.

#3 From Scott Horton's blogpost Boehner’s Challenge

Spoiler

It will probably be impossible to prove compellingly that talk moved the shooter to pull the trigger on Giffords, but there is lots of mischief caused by such talk short of that i.e. there are material benefits to turning it down a notch beyond the case of Giffords.

 

A plea for a little common sense and intellectual honesty.

[Note: I realized after typing this what a novel it had become, so if you've already decided I'm full of it, feel free to skip. But I think this will resonate with quite a few others, and it's from the heart. I'll spoiler the bulk of it for space.]

I wanted to address this, a point brought up a few times by LKD:

Spoiler

This I certainly agree with, to a point. The talking heads and rhetorical leaders of the right - Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc. - bear no direct responsibility. Loughner did what he did and they did not put the idea in his head. I've maintained that from the start. Despite what NOG says, no one is blaming Palin directly for what happened, either. I mean this generally - I'm sure there a few who actually are, but there are always a-holes in any situation. But they are few.).

I noticed you compared this situation to blaming J. D. Salenger's "Catcher in the Rye" for the actions of other would-be assassins, and how absurd that would be. I can see how you would go there, but I think it really misses the mark. For one thing, Salenger never set out to convince anyone that "Catcher" was a factual account. It was purely a work of fiction (though based on the real world), and Salenger is in no way responsible for unstable people reading things into it and taking drastic action. Salenger also never perported himself to be anything other than a novelist. He's never run for office or worked for a news organization, and is has no responsibility to maintain the public discourse.

Beck and Palin are another story. Glenn Beck - though he claims he's just a "commentator" to avoid ever having to answer for the myriad inaccuracies in his broadcasts - has no such pretense. He considers himself to be an honest broker of facts, and so do his audience. When he compares the current administration to the Nazis, or says Obama hates white people, or that Obama wants to gut the republic and make it a socialist state (and on and on), he's dead serious. More to the point - his viewers take him at his word. He is one of many on the right dedicated to convincing the public that the Democrats are not just bad, but dangerous; an immediate threat to their very lives and way of life. They reinforce these ideas using highly-evocative terms like tyranny, socialism, treason, fascism, enemies lists, etc. NOG would have you believe this is just them exercising their first amendment rights "go all out in expressing themselves," but I would argue it's a lot more serious than that, and considering the level of influence they have and the immensity of the platform they wield, such talk is incredibly irresponsible.

Remember - they aren't merely saying "Democrats are bad," which I would expect any opposition party to do. They are saying "Democrats are America's greatest enemy." I'm not concerned about the vast majority of the country with sense enough not to take that nonsense at face value. I'm terrified of the tiny minority who will. And that minority, I'm sorry to say, are almost certainly among the demographic overly interested in guns and gun culture.

And what's more, this isn't just a single film, or a single book, or a single tasteless comment, or a single anything. This rhetoric is constant, available 24/7, in audio, video and print form. What's more, it is given a highly-elevated level of legitimacy by the most influential conservatives in America - highly-rated TV personalities, Senators, Congressmen, and de-facto leaders of the conservative movement who also happen to be former Governors from Alaska. This kind of talk goes beyond mere "politics" - It is irresponsible and it is dangerous. This honestly should not be a partisan issue.

So when we have a horrible tragedy that is clearly political in nature, where the victim was an elected Democrat, in a state where the party who claims constantly that Democrats are an existential threat to Americans has had a recent history of fomenting public panic and rage with their over-the-top rhetoric directed at Democrats, and the most influential Conservative in a America paints a metaphorical target on that very Democrat (despite her benign intent), well....I think that's something that needs to be examined. To insist it is impossible for that to have had any effect on an unstable mind predisposed to political conspiracy theories simply because there is no direct evidence to say that there was is, to me, irresponsible at best and madness at worst. Asking the loudest mouths to reconsider their behavior is in no way an accusation of culpability. I wish some would understand that.

While, again, this rhetoric likely didn't put the idea in Loughner's head, it is not a stretch to think that the environment he was in could have influenced him to take action where he otherwise may not have. Not a push - just a nudge. Sometimes, for unstable people, that's all it takes.

And that's all I'm sayin'.

 

Ok, I'm not sure, but I think we may be talking about two completely different things here. I see nothing wrong with using millitary imagery in a campaign. For example, the campaign shot you provided of a soldier with his gun. He's not threatening to shoot anyone. He's not pointing it at anyone. He's saying, "I served my country." Campaign rhetoric that evokes the millitary is perfectly legitimate for anyone who is supporting the military. What I'm talking about are campaigns, advertizements, and speakers who threaten people, invoke fear, or portray their opponents as extremists and radicals without providing any facts. The candidate who had a commercial where he shot the Health Care bill is borderline. Having a gun is fine if you are advertizing that you support gun rights (which he did). Shooting or threatening to shoot people is not. Shooting or threatening to shoot ideas or inanimate objects to which you are the rightful owner is borderline. Of course, the guy was a conservative democrat, so he's borderline anyway.

If you are talking about the same fear, hate, and radicalizations that I am talking about, and if you really think they happen more on the right then on the left, then you don't pay attention to the left's media hounds. Rachael Maddow is a pitbull when it comes to politics. The shear contempt that comes from her show is disgusting. And she's not alone. Kieth Olbermann and Chris Matthews both have their own rabbid followings. The language is different, the attacks are from a different directions, but they're just as hateful. They prefer to portray their opponents as dictators and religious radicals rather than communists and terrorists. In the end, though, the vitriol is the same.

"Could potentially lead to violence". I agree with you completely. It could. On Saturday, however, it didn't. THAT is where we disagree.

You're right that I didn't realize that the film maker wasn't American. You're wrong that the books are irrelevant, though. What we're talking about is the tenor of political discourse in the US, not what political operatives are doing. I don't know if the authors of the books were rabbid democratic activists, or just not huge fans of Bush, but either way their books are evidence of the acceptance and even desire of violent rhetoric on the left. Because I promise you their target audiences weren't Republicans. When it is acceptable to write books about the murder of a sitting president, one who a lot of Americans don't like, it's a bad sign, and not irrelevant.

I notice you've changed the standard a bit. From 'about the assassination of' to 'inflammatory'. Of course, 'inflammatory' is a relative statement. People may disagree on what is inflammatory. For all I know, you don't consider Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right to be inflammatory. I don't know what you would count on the Right as inflammatory, but I've seen at least 3 'attack' books from the Left on the Right in actual bookstores for every one I've seen from the Right on the Left.

I had guessed it wasn't serious. I had guessed it was a bit prepping a 'but I didn't mean it litterally' come-back. I didn't see it as a joke. I did intend my own as sarcasm, though. Were you really too stupid to see that, when your own was a 'joke'?

On that, you're right, and I've come to understand that today. I didn't know the history of the term. It was inappropriate for her to use, and inappropriate for me to encourage. What some on the left have done is vile and disgusting, but not as bad as Blood Libel.

When you and others do it, it's because you have attributed his characteristics to me without even trying to read what I wrote. You've decided I'm wrong and so you don't even try to understand my arguements.

Enough of this, though. My real arguement to this point has been that this isn't the thread to have this debate about who hates who more. If you want to have that discussion, I beg you, please, start another thread for it. Don't do it here. There are better discussions we should have attached to this shooting. Discussions like this. I don't agree with everything here, but at least it's the right topic. I'm sorry I've been side-tracked by you on this topic. From now on, I'll ignore any comments you make on it in this thread.

LKD, I, too, was impressed by Obama's speech. He found a good middle ground, condemning the vitriol of political speech without indicating if he were talking about the Right's campaigns, the Left's, the Left's attack on the Right, or the Right's counter to the Left. The ultimate impression was that he was talking to all of them. I hope that he meant it that way, and that he included himself on the list. I also liked this part (it's long, so I'll spoiler):

Spoiler

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 system. And much -- much of this process...

(APPLAUSE)

... 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 happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds.

(APPLAUSE)

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 have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

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

Yes, we had to 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 such violence in the future.

(APPLAUSE)

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.

(APPLAUSE)

That we cannot do.

That we cannot do.

EDIT:

This is just stupid. One, your assumption that it was politically motivated is bad. Yes, the target was a politician, deep in a state that primarily disagrees with her party, but that's not proof. John Hinkley, Jr. proves that in history. He tried to assassinate President Reagan. Why? Was it because he disagreed with his politics? Because he was convinced Reagan was ruining our country? Because he suffered from mad paranoid delusions that Reagan was going to send black helicopters to kill him? No, he wanted to impress Jodie Foster, an actress in Holywood. He apparently got the idea from a movie she starred in (when she was 14). Definitely political, no? Moreover, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that it is impossible for a map with sights or targets on it to influence a disturbed mind. What I insisted is that, from the facts that we already knew on Monday, it was pretty much certain (99%) that it didn't influence this mind. This mind was a liberal (nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it certainly drops the odds that it'll be motivated to target a democrat due to a republican's map). This mind had apparently suffered from a world-consuming obsession since 2007, if not earlier. These are the facts that were already emerging Monday on which I based my statements. Of course, I don't expect facts to get in your way, DR. Certainly not with a loose correlation like that dangling in front of you.

Oh, and one last thing. Don't put words in my mouth. Ever. You don't know me half as well as you think you do. You don't know what I think and you don't know what I woudl say.

 

I'm going to keep these short, because frankly, I've really had enough of this.

Honestly, you have no way of knowing that it didn't. That is where we disagree. You also have no way of knowing that keeping up the heated rhetoric couldn't inspire someone else, and thus, it should be toned down. For all our sakes.

I didn't. You said:

That is what I was referring to. If you didn't believe that, you shouldn't have said it.

The title of this thread is "Tucson and the Political Debate." Talking about the charged environment of this situation - and whether or not the right and their rhetoric bear any responsibility for any of what happened - is exactly what this topic is about. Read Chandos' initial post if you don't believe me.

This is cheap. We do read everything you write, believe it or not, and give your arguments the respect we would expect for ourselves (at least I know I do), despite your winning combination of arrogance and cluelessness, and tendency to gloss over inconvenient facts or entire points. Perhaps you should consider the same about your own writing - not an uncommon complaint about you, I might add. Especially this time.

Well, thanks. If you say so, astute political and cultural observer that you are, that's good enough for me.

You really are far too obtuse to bother debating. But as I'm sure you think the same of me...I guess that's where we leave it. Take care, NOG.