U.S. politics isolation tank

[intothewoods]

The left makes the leaps.

Cautions about not drawing premature conclusions only apply when a Muslim is the shooter or bomber.

The media will always leap to conclusions. Someone has to be first. And it's only not ok in this instance for the right because the heat is on Sarah Palin, tea party groups, etc. I'll say what I always say though, we don't really know the entirety of what motivated this person yet. Regardless, vitriolic spew is still vitriolic spew. I don't like it whether it's a muslim extremist, Sarah Palin or some nutbar religious Israeli.

 

[JMohegan]

Palin insists that her crosshair symbols aren't rifle imagery, but merely "x marks the spot" kind of things. But that page came off the web within an hour after the news of the shooting went out.

That was such a stupid fucking thing for her to say.

Yes, and "Don't retreat, RELOAD" means refill your water bottle and keep hiking. Uh-huh.

List all the images and slogans you want banned and I'll be sure to forward the list to my congressman. I want you to feel safe, after all.

Such leaps you make, WD. Isn't it ever tiring?

The left makes the leaps.

Cautions about not drawing premature conclusions only apply when a Muslim is the shooter or bomber.

The "leap" I was referencing was the jump from:

A - JM points out that denying crosshairs are crosshairs is a stupid fucking thing to say

to

B - omg JM wants to ban images and slogans.


That's not drawing a premature conclusion; that's just a lame attempt at straw man construction.

 

[WriterDom]

The "leap" I was referencing was the jump from:

A - JM points out that denying crosshairs are crosshairs is a stupid fucking thing to say

to

B - omg JM wants to ban images and slogans.


That's not drawing a premature conclusion; that's just a lame attempt at straw man construction.

I believe it was reload, don't retreat or some such quote you had a problem with. So I suggested you write them all down.

We can all watch the connotation of the words we use. Targeting opponents, The war on drugs, Bush the senior saying "He kicked a little ass," in the debate with GF, Obama and the enemy republicans. Good old fashioned political hate has been with us since the founding of the country.

We have to stop framing everything that happens in terms of left or right the very few minutes after some crisis happens.

 

[WriterDom]

The media will always leap to conclusions. Someone has to be first. And it's only not ok in this instance for the right because the heat is on Sarah Palin, tea party groups, etc. I'll say what I always say though, we don't really know the entirety of what motivated this person yet. Regardless, vitriolic spew is still vitriolic spew. I don't like it whether it's a muslim extremist, Sarah Palin or some nutbar religious Israeli.

My guess is the only tea party you saw was through a MSNBC colored lens. Compare it to any far left group on the streets. Not only that, but these people even clean up after themselves.

Maybe if we didn't have the internet, the left would get off their ass.

 

[JMohegan]

I believe it was reload, don't retreat or some such quote you had a problem with. So I suggested you write them all down.

In the post to which you responded, my point was that denying that crosshairs are crosshairs was a stupid reaction to the controversy over Palin's target map.

We can all watch the connotation of the words we use. Targeting opponents, The war on drugs, Bush the senior saying "He kicked a little ass," in the debate with GF, Obama and the enemy republicans. Good old fashioned political hate has been with us since the founding of the country.

Palin loves gun imagery and phrasing. She uses them all the time. In the past, that has always seemed to me to be a purposeful part of her obnoxious, in-your-face persona. A deliberate attempt to provoke, and to rally those who love provoking. Not to incite her fans to actually start shooting people, but rather to openly mock those with differing views on issues relating to gun control.

In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, I would have said she has two choices. 1 - "man up" (to borrow another of her favorite phrases) and admit that all the gun references now seem tasteless and inappropriate, and resolve to drop them, or 2 - continue with the gun loving, in-your-face persona, make no apology for it, double down on the mocking and outright own it.

So far, however, she seems to be opting for: 3 - pretend her gun references weren't gun references at all.

 

[Netzach]

I believe it was reload, don't retreat or some such quote you had a problem with. So I suggested you write them all down.

We can all watch the connotation of the words we use. Targeting opponents, The war on drugs, Bush the senior saying "He kicked a little ass," in the debate with GF, Obama and the enemy republicans. Good old fashioned political hate has been with us since the founding of the country.

We have to stop framing everything that happens in terms of left or right the very few minutes after some crisis happens.

Literally framing the person you're opposing in crosshairs is not "he kicked a little ass."

Literally urging people to show up on the hill to intimidate like a mafia army you control isn't "protest this measure."

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

'Still, some believe that incendiary rhetoric like Palin's bears some responsibility in the tragedy. Giffords herself had previously raised concerns about Palin's map: "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."'

 

[JMohegan]

'Still, some believe that incendiary rhetoric like Palin's bears some responsibility in the tragedy. Giffords herself had previously raised concerns about Palin's map: "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."'

The notion that Palin bears some responsibility for this particular incident would be plausible if the shooter had been an avowed Palin fan. So far, however, there's no evidence to support that notion.

Did Palin create the gun culture in Arizona? Hardly. She just exploits it.

 

[intothewoods]

My guess is the only tea party you saw was through a MSNBC colored lens. Compare it to any far left group on the streets. Not only that, but these people even clean up after themselves.

Maybe if we didn't have the internet, the left would get off their ass.

Yeah, that's how I get all of my info.

In the post to which you responded, my point was that denying that crosshairs are crosshairs was a stupid reaction to the controversy over Palin's target map.


Palin loves gun imagery and phrasing. She uses them all the time. In the past, that has always seemed to me to be a purposeful part of her obnoxious, in-your-face persona. A deliberate attempt to provoke, and to rally those who love provoking. Not to incite her fans to actually start shooting people, but rather to openly mock those with differing views on issues relating to gun control.

In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, I would have said she has two choices. 1 - "man up" (to borrow another of her favorite phrases) and admit that all the gun references now seem tasteless and inappropriate, and resolve to drop them, or 2 - continue with the gun loving, in-your-face persona, make no apology for it, double down on the mocking and outright own it.

So far, however, she seems to be opting for: 3 - pretend her gun references weren't gun references at all.

She could handle this so much better. But it's no surprise I suppose.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

There's absolutely no way to prove that a steady drumbeat of "we may kill elected representatives if we don't get our way, and would be noble for doing so" is feeding the paranoid delusions of potentially dangerous nutjobs.

And that's what makes it the perfect tactic.

 

[JMohegan]

There's absolutely no way to prove that a steady drumbeat of "we may kill elected representatives if we don't get our way, and would be noble for doing so" is feeding the paranoid delusions of potentially dangerous nutjobs.

And that's what makes it the perfect tactic.

The guy holding the sign and packing heat is an obvious dick.

The question is: Is he a murderous dick, attempting to incite actual violence? An obnoxious dick, who gets off on mocking others, à la Palin? A belligerent dick, with an intent to intimidate and cow his opponents?

Depends on the individual, I'd say.


As for the collective drumbeat of the combined murderous dicks, obnoxious dicks, and belligerent dicks, of course it feeds the paranoid delusions of nutjobs. How could it not?

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

The guy holding the sign and packing heat is an obvious dick.

The question is: Is he a murderous dick, attempting to incite actual violence? An obnoxious dick, who gets off on mocking others, à la Palin? A belligerent dick, with an intent to intimidate and cow his opponents?

Depends on the individual, I'd say.

I have no way of knowing. That's why every citizen over two needs to be armed. With paranoia rising, more paranoia is the only answer.

As for the collective drumbeat of the combined murderous dicks, obnoxious dicks, and belligerent dicks, of course it feeds the paranoid delusions of nutjobs. How could it not?

Speculate all you want, but there's just no way you can prove a connection like that.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Rather than indulge in idle speculation -- as most of the media has been -- there is real evidence about the Tucson shooting. It won't appear on your TV or newspaper. The only story to get at it was in Monday's Guardian. The shooter is a disciple of a nut job who calls himself (Judge) David Wynn Miller.

The Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist?intcmp=239

The web site for Miller -where you can read just the type of rants that the shooter Loughner posted on line -- sometimes literally word for word.
http://dwmlc.com/

If the gobbley-gook is too much to wade through, try the Wikipedia article, which includes a reference from Miller to the shooter. He admits that Loughner is espousing his ideas but denies any knowledge or link with the actual shooting. Since Loughner is quoting Miller, he can't deny that.
Wiki article for some clarity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller

Anyone who has followed these groups knows that the Godfather of the entire movement is Lyndon LaRouche. Miller acknowledges his influence and a look at LaRouche's site shows the connections.
LaRouche: http://larouchepub.com/

Does LaRouche have a connection to the Tea Party? Well he prints posters for their protests. One of several examples:

Which, of course, never advocate violence:

 

[Homburg]

They're very old school, H. I don't think that's going to be the message. Shit, Gifford was very pro-2 with less hinderance.

I think it's going to be that Michelle "let's scare 'em" Bachmann may have some interesting soundbites coming back up at her like a repeat falafel belch.

Could be the end of pseudo-terror rhetoric. If you can't handle the idea that you can't just say whatever comes out of your ass when you're in politics, then don't play the game. Or be Joe Biden.

I don't think it is possible to be a politician in Arizona and not be Pro-2. I'm pretty frikken pro-2 myself and even I have looked at Arizona and thought that it was a little excessive there.

Still, I'm hoping that it doesn't happen. Might signal at least a solid lull in the unending, and utterly pointless debate. And, as a solidly pro-2 guy, I want the NRA to shut the fuck up just as much as I want HCI and Sarah Brady to zip it too.

--

In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, I would have said she has two choices. 1 - "man up" (to borrow another of her favorite phrases) and admit that all the gun references now seem tasteless and inappropriate, and resolve to drop them, or 2 - continue with the gun loving, in-your-face persona, make no apology for it, double down on the mocking and outright own it.

So far, however, she seems to be opting for: 3 - pretend her gun references weren't gun references at all.

I think I would almost respect Option #2. Almost.

No, okay, I wouldn't, but it would be better than #3.

 

[Homburg]

/facepalm

I'm being the exact brand of asshole I was decrying earlier.

FML

This is why the debate grates on me.

 

[JMohegan]

They're very old school, H. I don't think that's going to be the message.

You're right. And anyone who follows politics knows why.

Missing from Arizona shooting debate: Guns

In the wake of the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, politicians on both sides of the aisle are passionately debating the role of incendiary rhetoric.

Very few of them are talking about guns.

Those who have brought up gun control in light of the Tucson shooting have largely been the issue’s regular standard-bearers on Capitol Hill. Even gun-control advocates aren’t very optimistic about their chances.

The fact that the shooting does not appear to be prompting an episode of hand-wringing is exactly the way the gun lobby likes it. That the gun issue has been so secondary, and the approach to the gun component of the incident so tentative, indicates the extent to which the issue has subsided in the past decade.

A bipartisan truce is in effect on gun control issues in Washington — a truce on the National Rifle Association’s terms.

The signal piece of gun legislation to come out of the Arizona shooting looks to be a bill that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) plans to bring up as soon as this week. It would ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines such as the one Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s would-be assassin, Jared Lee Loughner, attached to his Glock 19, allowing him to fire off 33 bullets without reloading, rather than the 10 or so in a typical clip.

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who plans to introduce McCarthy’s legislation in the Senate, said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.”

But McCarthy and Lautenberg are up against a political consensus that has only hardened in recent years as Democrats made inroads into Republican territory largely on their ability to neutralize the gun issue. Some of their red-state victories were with pro-gun candidates such as Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.

Democrats’ abandonment of their cause has dismayed gun-control advocates, who have had fewer and fewer friends on Capitol Hill.

McCarthy, whose husband was killed when a gunman opened fire on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, is the exception — gun-control advocates’ guardian angel.

Maybe, said Chad Ramsey, federal legislative director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, lawmakers will no longer see the issue as disposable after the Giffords shooting.

The nation’s ever-loosening gun laws are a “result of this willingness to allow the gun issue to slide,” he said. “Folks said, ‘We’ll let them have the gun issue; it’s politically better to do that.’ Maybe some of them now will say, ‘Maybe that was a bad idea. Maybe I should have stood up.’”




[Note to Ramsey: Don't hold your breath.]

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Joe Scarborough has become the voice of reason. How did that happen?

 

[midwestyankee]

Joe Scarborough has become the voice of reason. How did that happen?

So very tempted to say something along the lines of "...in the land of the blind..."


There's a fascinating quandary in play right now. Folks on the left traditionally have pooh-poohed any suggestion from the right that violent video games or grossly violent movies might have contributed to violence in society. Yet recently it was pretty common for left-side commentators to blast the SarahPAC graphic with the gun-sight image on Gabrielle Giffords' district. At the same time, folks on the right who habitually decry the deleterious effect of "Hollywood immorality" want to claim all of a sudden that culture can have no effect on individual actions.

Neither side can have it both ways, and yet both sides have a point. You can't make a clean case that this shooting—or most violent acts for that matter—can be linked causally to the violent gun-centric rhetoric of the right over the last couple of years. So the right has a point. On the other hand, that the cultural atmosphere is so ridden with violence almost certainly contributes in some way to the creation of a more violent society.

That we cannot link a cultural impact with a particular act in no way relieves the culture of some measure of responsibility.

 

[JMohegan]

Joe Scarborough has become the voice of reason. How did that happen?

I don't usually watch the guy. What did he say?

 

[JMohegan]

There's a fascinating quandary in play right now. Folks on the left traditionally have pooh-poohed any suggestion from the right that violent video games or grossly violent movies might have contributed to violence in society. Yet recently it was pretty common for left-side commentators to blast the SarahPAC graphic with the gun-sight image on Gabrielle Giffords' district. At the same time, folks on the right who habitually decry the deleterious effect of "Hollywood immorality" want to claim all of a sudden that culture can have no effect on individual actions.

Neither side can have it both ways, and yet both sides have a point. You can't make a clean case that this shooting—or most violent acts for that matter—can be linked causally to the violent gun-centric rhetoric of the right over the last couple of years. So the right has a point. On the other hand, that the cultural atmosphere is so ridden with violence almost certainly contributes in some way to the creation of a more violent society.

That we cannot link a cultural impact with a particular act in no way relieves the culture of some measure of responsibility.

I think a couple of observations are relevant here.

First, that elected officials bear a different type of civic responsibility than say, your average video game manufacturer.

And second, that objections to Palin's target map did not begin last weekend. They began last March, when anti-HCR rhetoric became so incendiary that congressmembers actually WERE subjected to violence and violent threats.

Coffin on the lawn of Carnahan's home

Threatening messages left for Stupak

Gas line cut at home of Perriello brother

Door of Ms. Gifford's office smashed in

Louise Slaughter threatened with sniper attacks


These were not hypothetical cases of "oh, gee, maybe if Sean Hannity doesn't knock off the bullshit about socialism and Pelosi/Reid/Obama trying to destroy everything we hold dear in this country, something bad might happen." Bad shit WAS happening. Threatening, undemocratic, out of control, totally unacceptable shit was actually going down.

Check out the audio at that Stupak link. The threats were very personal and very direct. Individuals felt, literally, targeted - and not because of some vague references to violence in general. They felt, literally, targeted because they were, literally threatened *as individuals*.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think a couple of observations are relevant here.

First, that elected officials bear a different type of civic responsibility than say, your average video game manufacturer.

And second, that objections to Palin's target map did not begin last weekend. They began last March, when anti-HCR rhetoric became so incendiary that congressmembers actually WERE subjected to violence and violent threats.

Coffin on the lawn of Carnahan's home

Threatening messages left for Stupak

Gas line cut at home of Perriello brother

Door of Ms. Gifford's office smashed in

Louise Slaughter threatened with sniper attacks


These were not hypothetical cases of "oh, gee, maybe if Sean Hannity doesn't knock off the bullshit about socialism and Pelosi/Reid/Obama trying to destroy everything we hold dear in this country, something bad might happen." Bad shit WAS happening. Threatening, undemocratic, out of control, totally unacceptable shit was actually going down.

Check out the audio at that Stupak link. The threats were very personal and very direct. Individuals felt, literally, targeted - and not because of some vague references to violence in general. They felt, literally, targeted because they were, literally threatened *as individuals*.

I don't disagree with you in any way. I just find the quandary intriguing. When either side of the debate tries to make absolutist arguments, they are on shaky ground. I happen to believe that folks on the right are treading on lily pads on the issue at the moment. And it's some really shitty water they're just barely avoiding.

In fact, the majority of the violent rhetoric coming from the right in the last two years has come from non-elected individuals (Sarah Palin being one such person and Rush Limbaugh another). Of course one could also make the argument that entertainers at that level bear some kind of civic responsibility insofar as they seek to engage in the politics of our time.

I also don't mean to convey the notion that there is an equivalency between the cultural impact of violence in entertainment and violent rhetoric in the political sphere. In essence the response from the right is an effort to avoid saying the simple truth that they have not really meant the actual words they have been using for the last two years and so should not really be taken seriously.

Of course, leave it to Glenn Beck to try to make the case that we need to tone down the rhetoric with a photo of him wielding a large pistol only a few pixels away on his website.

 

[midwestyankee]

Leave it to Limbaugh to make things worse no matter what:



"Rush Limbaugh: Jared Loughner Has 'Full Support' Of Democrat Party"

 

[JMohegan]

I don't disagree with you in any way. I just find the quandary intriguing.

I think I'm having trouble seeing the quandary, because I don't see the equivalence.

There's an enormous difference between graphic & gratuitous violence involving fictional characters in games and film, and language that explicitly demonizes, and urges the targeting of, real individuals.

If you want to talk about the general gun culture, look at my weapons, I'm so badass, don't tread on me blah blah, then I think you've got an apt comparison and a relevant head-scratcher of a quandary. But "general" is not what's been going on.

 

[Homburg]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

Jon Stewart on the Arizona shooting.

Really well done. Yet again I wonder what sort of world we live in where the most cogent political commentary I can find is showcased on the Comedy Network.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding insensitive to the tragedy in Tucson, or the people who are grieving and troubled by it. It isn't that I'm insensitive to it myself; it's just that I can't help but notice a rather stark dichotomy here.

People are shot every single day in this country. Innocent people, shot dead. Often mass shootings into crowds. There are communities in which the utterly senseless death of innocents, even children, happens all the fucking time. And the rest of us rarely even hear about it, much less go through days of national mourning, collective hand-wringing, presidential moments of silence, and heartfelt Jon Stewart monologues.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't grieve and be troubled by Tucson. I'm saying that sometimes, to me, the dichotomy itself feels obscene.