- Image via Wikipedia
Some folks have claimed that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party folks have a causal role in the terrible shooting in Arizona. As evidence, they point to Palin’s infamous cross hairs and her use of violent metaphors. In the case of the Tea Party, they are supposed to also have contributed to creating a context of violence.
While the idea that Palin and the Tea Party are responsible is appealing to some folks, the evidence for this seems to be entirely lacking. While the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, seems to have had an interest in politics, he also seemed to have had a drug problem and also serious psychological issues. Loughner apparently showed signs of serious problems while a student and this resulted in him being removed from class and finally being removed from the community college.
As to why he might have focused on Giffords, the cause seems to be an incident that happened three years ago when he was a student at the community college. He went to one of Giffords’ meetings and submitted a rather unusual question about what government would be if words had no meaning. Giffords apparently did not answer the question in a way that satisfied him. This, it is alleged, is the main cause of his dislike of Gifford.
As such, the most likely factors seem to be a combination of drug use and psychological problems that were focused onto Giffords by that incident. As such, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have no connection to this and they should not be blamed.
That said, there are still some legitimate concerns about Palin’s use of violent rhetoric and the infamous cross-hair map. I will, however, not be discussing these now beyond saying that Palin would seem to need to step up to address this matter.
As far as who is to blame, the obvious answer is this: the person who shot those people on that Saturday. At this point, that shooter is supposed to be Loughner.
Of course, as the media psychologists point out, it can be claimed that others are to blame as well. The parents. The community college. Society.
On the one hand, this blame sharing seems to miss the point that people are responsible for their actions. The person who pulled that trigger over and over again is the one that is responsible. He did not have to go there that day. Going there, he did not have to pull the trigger.
On the other hand, no one grows up and acts in a perfect vacuum. Each of us is shaped by factors around us and, of course, we have responsibilities to each other. If Loughner was the shooter, then it seems that there was considerable evidence that he was unstable and likely to engage in violence. As such, it could be argued that those who were aware of these facts and failed to respond bear some of the blame for allowing him to be free to kill and wound.
Well said.
It really disturbed me that I knew exactly what was going to happen before it did. I knew that this tragedy would immediately be seized upon by unscrupulous individuals, who after losing the public debates and elections want to “tone down” the debates.
There are a couple of catastrophic problems with their arguments, not the least being that Laughner’s political beliefs, at least as they can be interpreted through what has been released in the media, do not seem to jive with any particular party system. For instance, he built a quasi-Satanic shrine at his residence. He routinely smoked dope. He was an independant who didn’t vote in the 2010 elections.
Does this sound like a right-wing Ruby Ridge type?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php
I make no claims that his reported “left-wingness” persuaded him to do what he did, but if he did smoke a lot of pot, it certainly didn’t help with his reported menatl illness; heavy use of marijuana correlates highly with mental illness.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/the-cannabis-and-schizophrenia-conundrum-10218/
Secondly, this individual, by every count I’ve heard from the people who were around him, was mentally ill. Not necessarily insane (legally, there’s a difference). But maybe he was that, too. He made no attempt to get away, really, or at leats did not try to conceal what he did or plan an escape that we know of.
Thirdly, there have been many acts of violence against well known people that we do not attribute to a vitiolic political atmosphere. Why was Reagan shot?
To me, what proves that the atmosphere in Washington and in the blogs is sick, is not this shooting. It’s the attempts by certain politicians and idealogogues to politicize an event for their own benefit. Those people should be very ashamed. And they ought to be called out on their actions because they think they’re actually fooling people into passing legislation.
I hope that the congress woman comes through this.
Quite right. While the shooter did seem to have political views that might have played a role in his motivations, he cannot be laid at the door of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
While I did expect that people would try to squeeze this terrible event for political juice, I was saddened by the rapidity with which some folks tried to fuel the machinery of their political agendas with the blood of the fallen.
What kills me is that in the very first reports I read– maybe two hours after the shooting–they were already mentioning Sarah Palin.
They didn’t have their facts straight about the shooting, but they already seemed to know the shooters motivation.
Oliver North here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/14/from_atrocity_to_travesty_108536.html
There is also the point that Palin needs to use tough rhetoric to show that she is as tough or tougher than the men she is competing against.
So apparently even the words “job-killing” are beyond the pale?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chellie-pingree/for-gabbys-sake-republica_b_806487.html
A good place to start a more civil dialog would be for my Republican colleagues in the House to change the name of the bill they have introduced to repeal health care reform. The bill, titled the “Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act,” was set to come up for a vote this week, but in the wake of Gabby’s shooting, it has been postponed at least until next week.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word “killing” in the title of a major piece of legislation? I don’t think that word is in there by accident — my Republican friends know as well as anyone the power of words to send a message.
“…beyond saying that Palin would seem to need to step up to address this matter.”
Meanwhile, it is perfectly OK for Dems to have ads like this…
And Michael Dukakis drove an M-1 Tank!
That was sub-awesome…
You might say he was tankified…
The M-1 tank was a Dukakis ‘jump the shark’ moment for sure.
In his case, a “ride the tank” moment.
So without any evidence the left indicts Sarah Palin as an accomplice to murder.
And then they complain about the lack of civil discourse?
Perhaps some of you out there have seen this:
“Maxine’s Health care Plan
Senior Health Care Solution
So you’re a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do?
Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered.
And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.
IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?”
A conservative friend emailed this to me last month. After I received it I Googled it; this has been making the rounds for at least a year. I doubt there’s a person in the country by now who hasn’t seen it.
SP’s not responsible for the shooting ; JL’s responsible for the shooting. And JL may never have seen the idiocy cited above.
My point is that my friend thinks this piece is funny. He believes the thinking behind the statement “Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.” is funny and harmless. Thinks it represents some kind of coherent part of an argument against the health care plan, that it makes sense in a constitutional republic based on a representative democracy.
People are not only responsible for their actions; they’re responsible for their thoughts. Crap like the material above helps provide validation (some crazy moral traction) for twisties who believe anarchy (when you start shooting representatives to solve political problems) is the answer to our problems.
That is the first I have seen of it….honestly.
Have you found that line on the tax form where I can easily pay more taxes if I wish. Honestly.
Erik, it would seem it isn’t there after but I am no expert in giving extra to the Federal Government in taxes. Up her in New England it is on a few states income tax forms and I confused the two. You are right, it is a very small point, and a technicallity that did not chnage my point. I am so glad you are obsessed with it though. It brings out the Liberal superiority complex in you. The technicallity did not change my point though of anyones’ ability to give extra money to the government instead of forcing others to do it. Back on topic though. If this obscure e-mail you bring up is the best you have for validation then you must think yourself very superior and conservatives stupid. Is this obscure e-mail the best you have as evidence? Again, I have never seen it and if it were passed my way it would not be passed on and end up in my virtual trash can. If you don’t believe I haven’t seen it well then I believe you have conservative friends just as much as I believe the owner of this site is not biased towards Liberalism.
Never said it was the best evidence. Never thought it was. But it’s pretty damn good. If you have the nads to Google Maxine’s Health Care Plan, you’ll find more than enough results to prove it’s anything but an “OBSCURE” e-mail 🙂 How do you define ‘obscure’ by the way? Do you define it as anything you claim not to have seen? Here’s one you’ll find if you do smart Googling:
http://alonglifespathinc.blogspot.com/2010/12/laugh-for-holidays-maxines-health-care.html
It’s subtitled”a ‘laugh’ for the holidays”. Very funny, that. Shooting congressmen.Who’d a thunk it. Har.De. Har.
You’re forgiven for making the same claim twice (Dec. 13) about the non-existent line before finally correcting your error. Now it would be nice to know which states’ income tax forms you’re referring to, including line references. Urls would be helpful 🙂 Fool me once and all that. . .I’m not concerned with small points. I’m concerned with patterns. I wouldn’t want to think you post stuff you make up any time you think it might suit your purpose or when you have no purpose at all.
Oh–I do have a conservative friend. Don’t know if I could handle two. Do you have any librul friends, or isn’t that too much to expect?
This kid was putting out psycho killer vibes for quite a while yet no one intervened.
What we need to do is to provide legal protections to people of goodwill who intervene in these situations. His professor should have been able to ensure that JL was seen by a psychiatrist without worrying that he would be sued or lose his job.
Hooray for personal responsibility. When will the MSM catch up with this concept? Well, OK, they do see it when they want to. Kinda-sorta.
See, it works like this…When a trained psychologist expressing fervent Islamic views and deep opposition to the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan goes on a shooting spree on a US Army base, it is an “isolated and tragic case” and Janet Napolitano will tell us that “This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith”.
But if a pot-smoking, pro-flag burning, anti-religion nut case goes on a shooting spree, this is an individual who does, obviously, represent Sara Palin and anyone to the right of the political spectrum.
Saying that anyone other than the shooter is responsible for his act of violence is absurd.
However, the public use of language and imagery that is suggestive of inciting violence is not only irresponsible, it is morally wrong.
Although other groups are doubtless guilty of this, no sane person with functioning eyes and ears can deny that the political hard right (not limited to politicians, and to include Palin, though she’s not the worst offender) has been using violent language and imagery in expressing anti-liberal sentiment.
This is especially dismaying, even disgusting, when it comes from public leaders — which elected politicians are — who by dent of such position have an even greater onus to behave responsibly.
That is the real issue at hand; presenting it as or arguing against anything else is just a red herring.
I could argue that no sane person with functioning eyes and ears can deny that the political hard left (not limited to politicians) has been using violent language and imagery. Have you seen the movie “Fight Club”? How about “V for Vendetta”? There was a 10:10 video that was especially violent and went way beyond the imagery of “targeting”. The 2006 film “Death of a President”? Nothing I have heard nor seen from conservative radio or TV comes anywhere near these films in their violent imagery.
While some might argue that these films were not produced by politicians, it’s rather convenient that popular culture produces the imagery that works in favor of lefty politicians so they can benefit without getting their hands dirty. As for the left’s politicians themselves, you can find plenty of violent imagery coming from the left if you just have the desire to look for it. The right takes a greater part of the heat on this issue mostly because they more strongly defend the second amendment and thus the imagery sticks to them more easily.
So when Obama says things like “punch back twice as hard”, “get in their faces”, “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun”, and calls Republicans “enemies” this is OK.
He also gave the finger to Hillary in a debate or two. This is also OK, I guess.
Pot, meet kettle.
I forgot the “hostage takers” comment he just made.
You and WTP are missing my point: Anyone who engages in this, and to the extent that they engage in it, is in the wrong.
These things are done by individuals, and it is the individuals doing them who should be held accountable; when groups — such as political parties — have unusual concentrations of such individuals it’s a cause for concern, but in the final analysis it is those individuals themselves who are accountable.
The non-offending members of such groups — which, as you point out, include both the American Left and Right — become accountable only when they stand in solidarity with those members who are employing violent imagery and rhetoric.
I single out the political hard right because they are the most egregious offender; your point that they are not the only offender is well taken and I agree.
“I single out the political hard right because they are the most egregious offender…”
What is your evidence? A gut feeling in your stomach?
In the 20th century the left killed far more than the right, so forgive me if I don’t find the left particularly peace loving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
In the introduction, editor Stéphane Courtois states that “…Communist regimes…turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government”. He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the “excess deaths” (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
* 65 million in the People’s Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union[3]
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam[4]
* 150,000 in Latin America
* 10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power.”(p. 4)
Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.
Eh? The context of this thread is contemporary America, hence I was talking about the present American hard right.
If your point is that, over the course of history, people across the political spectrum have incited or committed unjust violence, we’ve already agreed on that.
But you provided no evidence, nor any definition of “hard.”
You’re quibbling; I don’t see how it’s hard to understand that the “hard right” is comprised of those individual who are hard to the right of the leftwing-rightwing American political spectrum.
As for evidence, it’s a hot topic in the news and blogosphere right now so a quick google will bring up all you’d care to look at — I don’t bother with providing the links because the point is tangential, easy for you to independently verify, and moreover a matter of consensus outside the GOP.
I truly don’t care if you agree me on this so long as you agree 1) that imagery and rhetoric suggestive of inciting violence has no place in the public sphere, and 2) that anyone using or condoning such imagery or rhetoric should be censured for doing so.
“suggestive of inciting violence ”
I have no idea what this means. Is talking about a “battleground state” suggestive of inciting violence?
In full context, “suggestive of inciting violence” means something that states or implies encouragement for unlawful or unjust violence.
The key is that this comes in degrees, it’s not an “either/or” thing; you have to look at both the local and extended context in which something occurs in order to evaluate it.
In isolation, talking about a political “battleground state” would be fairly low on the scale, whereas calling for a “2nd amendment solution” would be rather high.
Which of these Jefferson quotes are “suggestive of inciting violence”?
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.
Thomas Jefferson
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Thomas Jefferson
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
This is the only one, and only when considered in isolation; I believe the context is that when government becomes 1) oppressive, and 2) corrupt to the point where civil channels no longer allow the people to influence, then the people are justified in throwing its yoke by force…in this context, it expresses a rational truth and cannot be seen as unduly inciting violence.
The reason the others are not unduly inciting is because they deal with a people collectively defending themselves against external aggressors — which is not the issue this thread brings up:
Here, we have rhetoric and imagery inciting citizens to violence against each other…this is why it’s so damaging; it tears apart the social fabric of a country in a way that dealing with external threats does not.
“I believe the context is that when government becomes 1) oppressive, and 2) corrupt to the point where civil channels no longer allow the people to influence, then the people are justified in throwing its yoke by force…in this context, it expresses a rational truth and cannot be seen as unduly inciting violence.”
But this was exactly the context of the Sharon Angle “2nd amendment remedies” quote, which seemed to bother you.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/what-are-sharron-angles-2nd-amendment-remedies-to-reids-oppression.html
Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…
Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.
Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
Beneath it all the Jefferson issue comes down to some basic questions: What is tyranny? Who will decide when simple disagreement has become tyranny? I wouldn’t want JL to be the final judge of when 2nd amendment cures are necessary. Or KO. Or RL. Or Dittoheads. Or single individuals or small, mentally-tattered fringy groups on both sides of the political spectrum. Independent thinkers, anyone? Not among that group.
There’s not a lot clear thinking going on when someone concludes that any aspect of the new health care plan is tyranny and worthy of revolution involving violence.
As long as there are measures in the Constitution available to the populace to settle disagreements–and there are plenty yet available because our Founders, being aware of the tyranny they had most recently dealt with (England’s) made sure of that– -there’s clearly no excuse for a “Second Amendment solution”.
And besides, why use the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment as an excuse, if one is so willing to leap past its very effective peaceful machinery to a violent solution?
“And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.” The “Harry Reid” problems may need a Second Amendment cure? Give me a break.
“The “Harry Reid” problems may need a Second Amendment cure? Give me a break.”
I agree that this is ridiculous, but it is also ridiculous to want to criminalize this sort of speech.
TJ: I agree. Criticize the speaker and the speech–it is, after all, our right to do so. Marginalize(by satirizing, ridiculing, shunning -if I were Amish?) those who use such ‘ridiculous’ and potentially harmful language. But I’d never criminalize it.
And I’d never, EVER attempt to legitimize it as some have done.
That’s ‘legitimize’ in this dictionary sense:
“to make seem just, right, or reasonable; justify”
“I agree that this is ridiculous, but it is also ridiculous to want to criminalize this sort of speech.”
You have to be careful there, TJ: I’ve been calling for censure to implicit incitement, which is quite distinct from criminalization. However, explicit incitement is clearly a criminal act (this is why Charles Manson is in prison…), and it should be noted that a sufficiently high degree of the implicit functionally transitions into the explicit.
Regarding 2nd amendment solutions, erik did a great job of pointing out that we are in a functioning democracy — hence, the situation is absolutely not the same as that addressed by Jefferson, contra your above interpretation.
Surely you’ve kept up with the words that’ve been levied against Palin and her children for the last 3 years…
I think you’re missing my point. The left is as guilty, and more so from my point of view, as the right. TJ provided examples of left-wing mass murder, much of which gets excused by the American left.
This topic is the live wire it is today because something changed. It was not JL’s actions that brought this topic up, it was the way the political left jumped on it to create this discussion. Here’s a sample from Jamie Dupree’s news blog (http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2011/01/capitol-hill-scene.html):
“What happened in Tuscon could be the first shot fired in a coming civil war. The violence has been just below the boiling point for awhile. If those being bullied start fearing for their lives and their loved ones, then those who have been pushing the most and shouting the loudest could learn what happens when you waken a sleeping giant.”
This sort of rhetoric is raging from the left. Not saying the right is pure, but I have not seen the same density of this kind of rhetoric there. Where were you during the Bush administration? Who was standing up for GWB on the left when people were calling for his head? Who speaks up for him now as it continues on the fringes, even as Obama employs many of the same policies that these people are so mad at Bush for? Where was the requisite outrage regarding the “Death of a President” movie? It won a Toronto Film Festival prize, IIRC.
Oh, and BTW as I read it by itself the quote from the commenter at Dupree’s blog (which I also should emphasize, it definitely wasn’t from JD) standing alone it is hard to tell where the commenter was coming from. I read a few more of this guy’s comments on other posts to get the gist of his lefty POV. Probably not the best example, but certainly typical and form me most egregious of what I have seen today.
The rhetoric of social violence is wrong wherever it comes from, I certainly don’t disagree with you on that point.
Every instance deserves censure.
So……what group is responsible for this man shooting a senator? What unusual concentration was he part of?
From the information revealed so far, he’s deranged. A crazy. A twisty, if you will. But there’s no “unusual concentration” of crazies so far as I know. My impression is that they don’t congregate. . . .usually. That’s why they have a reputation as loners. Outsiders. These types have been around since time immemorial.
More info may be revealed to us later. But that’s all for now, folks.
“enemies”? see Nixon’s enemies list
“punch back twice as hard”? see amateur and professional boxing
“get in their faces”? To get in someone’s face “Definition: to annoy or provoke someone ” http://esl.about.com/od/vocabularyreference/a/get_expressions.htm
“gave the finger to” see any elementary school yard
On a scale of one to ten, ten being the most violent, these words and phrases would be ranked , in a world where the population as a whole was nearly comatose, about 1.
This discussion is about something much more serious than that. Like Maxine’s Health Care Plan: “Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to SHOOT 2 SENATORS and 2 REPRESENTATIVES.”
“However, the public use of language and imagery that is suggestive of inciting violence is not only irresponsible, it is morally wrong.”
Maxine’s Health Care Plan: “Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.” Even if these words are spoken by Barney Rubble, they’re not funny. They’re not even effective light satire.
Maxine’s screed should have continued: “In fact, if you’re over 21, and you’ve got a bitch about your government, get out your knives, and guns, and bombs, and overthrow their tyranny. ‘Cuz that’s what it is when “THEY” don’t agree with “YOU”– tyranny.
We don’t have to go to the media and the Beltway to find the ‘source’ of our problem. Maxine and her ilk are part of the problem, too. We’re up to our necks in blacks and whites and seem blind to all shades of gray.
Depressing and alarming.
I’ve always felt sorry for Sarah. She has so much misdirected potential.
another philosophy teacher’s view
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/before-hatred-comes-fear/?hp
He calls himself a left-winger, but his view may be too balanced for some to stomach.
“In that sense, the emphasis the left is placing on violent rhetoric and imagery is probably misplaced. Sure, calls to violence, explicit or implicit, can have effect. But the more incendiary theme in current discourse is the consignment of Americans to the category of alien, of insidious other”
I still believe the rhetoric and imagery is very important. But, the marginalization, the “categorization of Americans [of any color, or religion] to the category of alien, of insidious other”–now that’s an arrow pointing the way down into the abyss of a twisted killer’s mind.
I guess all the years of “Bushitler,” “not my president,” and “regime change at home,” are now to be forgotten.
Not by me. You certainly didn’t get that from my post.Who could forget GWB? A deadly war of choice? Unfunded Medicare D. Trying to “save” Social Security” by ‘privatizing’ it with ‘private accounts’ or ‘personal accounts’ or whichever label he finally settled on as most popular with his party. I never said he was “not my president”. Unfortunately, and for all, he was.
He wasn’t Hitler. (And btw, neither is Obama). Oh, how can someone complain about signs depicting BO as Hitler; the did the same with Bush? Teacher, he hit me first!
And “regime change” at home? Again, not my stance. There are fools, idiots, jackasses and shitheads on all points of the political spectrum. I’d like to dissassociate myself from them. At the same time, I think it’s asinine for any one of the above to point to any other of the above to excuse their own actions.
By historical standards, I do not feel the rhetoric is especially overheated or that there is a “climate of hate.”
On the other hand, if both sides feel a need to tone it down then that is OK, too.
What I object to is the intellectual dishonesty of those on the left who want to assign all the guilt to the right.
And “I object to the intellectual dishonesty of those on the [right] who want to assign all the guilt [for the decline of the country, etc. etc. etc.] tp the left”
The word ‘feel’ bothers me. It’s like Greenspan’s concept of SS giving the citizen “a sense of wealth”. There’s no there there. It shouldn’t be a question of ‘feel[ing] a need to tone it down”. It’s a matter of “”it must be toned down. That the excuses given and issues identified for the anger and hatred and rage voiced in places like Maxine’s Health Care Plan and haven’t begun to reach a level of the need for “Second Amendment solutions”. We can’t just ‘feel’ that. We’ve got to ‘KNOW’ that.
“Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…
Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.
Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”
“If we needed it an any time in history, it might be right now.”. . .I’ll say it again to Manders or anyone else, Gimme a great big break. Where’s the sense of proportion? Who’s making the judgment that we’ve reached that momentous, historical, government-busting point? The good guys (conservatives, liberals, libertarians–who’s wearing the white hat this year?) or the bad guys (conservatives, liberals, libertarians–who’s wearing the black hat this month?)
“What I object to is the intellectual dishonesty of those on the left who want to assign all the guilt to the right.”
This is a good point, TJ, and you’re correct that attempting to shift all the guilt would be dishonest.
Recognizing that this issue isn’t restricted to any one group of people, the just response is to shift the focus from groups to the individuals themselves who are creating the issue.
If any one group has an abnormal concentration of such individuals, then the question of “Why?” needs to be answered and addressed, but that’s the end of it.
erik, that’s an interesting article.
The psychological effects of us/them characterization are well-documented — they form the empirical basis for conceptions of alterity and the Other that frequently crop up in academic discussions of sexism and racism, including violence based on discrimination.
Because strong us/them, same/other characterization has a long pedigree of violence, I consider it implicitly violent rhetoric — I think the linked article’s separation of “violent rhetoric and imagery” from “categorization of people as alien, insidious others” is a false dichotomy…I’m not sure why the author sees them as different.
Regardless, highlighting that violent rhetoric can take many (sometimes subtle) forms is an excellent point.
Here’s a question, were environmentalists responsible for Squeeky Frumm’s behavior in a possible attempt to assassinate Gerald Ford? Re Frumm’s statement:
“I stood up and waved a gun (at Ford) for a reason,” said Fromme. “I was so relieved not to have to shoot it, but, in truth, I came to get life. Not just my life but clean air, healthy water and respect for creatures and creation.”
More specifically, was the political left responsible for Sarah Jane Moore’s real attempt to assassinate Ford? Re Moore:
“The government had declared war on the left. Nixon’s appointment of Ford as vice president and his resignation making Ford president seemed to be a continuing assault on America.””
Both Moore and Frumm have been released from prison. Ron Reagan, in his new book speaks of his fear that his father would be assassinated. There was a lot of hatred for Ronald Reagan from those on the left. Where was the concern about leftist rhetoric back then?
It seems to be an error to place blame on the left or the right. After all, this would attribute blame to a vast number and range of people. It would be more sensible to look for specific causal links.
In the case of Fromme and Moore, it could be said that they espoused what could be regarded as left leaning views. However, shooting people is not something that most folks on the left or right endorse.
Mike, any comment?
http://twitter.com/MathChecker/status/636751888243929088/photo/1
Any particular point I should comment on?
What stood out to me was the pledge to not run a third party campaign. That seems undemocratic.
Well, you did write:
That said, there are still some legitimate concerns about Palin’s use of violent rhetoric and the infamous cross-hair map. I will, however, not be discussing these now beyond saying that Palin would seem to need to step up to address this matter.
He’s confused as to your point, TJ.
I’m tempted to say that I’m confused as to where his confusion comes from, but I fear such a comment would be terribly transparent.