Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Shot

[TBird41]

Jan 9, 2011 16:29:28 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I can't disagree with a lot of that, but I guess my basic problem is that these shooters could always be chalked up as ill and would always act at some point irrespective to any other factor. Sirhan Sirhan comes to mind there.

What I do think is that all of these guys are products of society to some degree, even though they are also ill. McVeigh got his thoughts from somewhere, ditto on the Olympics bomber, ditto on Al Qaeda, etc. I'll be interested to hear about his family background and schooling.

Likewise, it is not helpful to include rhetoric about violence against political leaders in your literature, speeches, and the like. My only suggestion is that some of that needs to be cleaned up, particularly from Palin, and the swamps drained. Palin earned the attention she's getting today. When your defense is that it was a gun sight on the map and not a target, better to save the ink and go back to the cave.

I'm not sure what can be gleaned from the book list - only that he enjoyed some theoretical/philosophical stuff - some of which is highly objectionable. His reading is across the map in terms of ideology.

I think there is a clear difference b/w someone who has bought into a dangerous ideology and someone who is mentally ill. McVeigh, for example, wasn't diagnosed with a treatable mental illness, nor was the Ft. Hood shooter. Hinckley was, and I'd be willing to bet that Loughner will be too. The difference, put very simply, is that the former could tell what was real and what wasn't, while the latter couldn't. The line is a lot clearer than you make it out to be. Here's the Mayo Clinic's rundown on schizophrenia for people that are interested, and it describes the symptoms a lot better than I just did:

www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizophrenia/DS00196

[jerseyhoya34]

I'm not equipped to diagnose whatever condition he has, but it probably is a safe bet that he is ill. I do think such people are more likely to be goaded into something by rhetoric, particularly if they can't tell reality from other things. They might look at Sarah Palin's map and not recognize that she's just trying to whip people into a nonviolent frenzy based on what she perceives as fascism and socialism in Washington. The line on that kind of stuff is so thin and the comments unnecessary/classless that I think we'd do well to have a moratorium on such nonsensical rhetoric if only to perhaps lessen the risk of something like this occurring.

Socially, I think he had to decide somewhere along the line that it is acceptable to do this kind of thing such that he did not stop himself. My question is where did he get that thought - something like mental illness may prevent him from stopping himself, but I am less likely to believe that it would cause him to pick a US Rep, decide he could kill such Rep, etc.

My $.02.

[TBird41]

Jan 9, 2011 16:57:56 GMT -5 afirth said:

I agree with the need to tone down the violent political rhetoric on both sides of the aisle, regardless of whether it had anything to do with Jared Loughner. My fear, however, is that politicians/the media will have a week-long navel-gazing conversation about the topic and then resume life as normal without things actually changing.

Yeah, that'd be my bet too. See sports and war references after 9/11.

[williambraskyiii]

Jan 9, 2011 16:47:17 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I'm not equipped to diagnose whatever condition he has, but it probably is a safe bet that he is ill. I do think such people are more likely to be goaded into something by rhetoric, particularly if they can't tell reality from other things. They might look at Sarah Palin's map and not recognize that she's just trying to whip people into a nonviolent frenzy based on what she perceives as fascism and socialism in Washington. The line on that kind of stuff is so thin and the comments unnecessary/classless that I think we'd do well to have a moratorium on such nonsensical rhetoric if only to perhaps lessen the risk of something like this occurring.

Socially, I think he had to decide somewhere along the line that it is acceptable to do this kind of thing such that he did not stop himself. My question is where did he get that thought - something like mental illness may prevent him from stopping himself, but I am less likely to believe that it would cause him to pick a US Rep, decide he could kill such Rep, etc.

My $.02.

It seems like Jersey has no interest is examining the facts in this case, but would rather indulge in drawing some nexus between this deranged lunatic's murderous act and conservative commentators. That's fine, if you want to be a jacka$$. Whether or not the "vitriol" spewing from modern-day politics is a bad thing, there is no basis for making any statement indicting Sarah Palin or any other political commentator as encouraging violence. Any attempt to do so is, frankly, despicable. Moreover, the Pima County sheriff was incredibly irresponsible and out of line in making any such statements yesterday in his press conference or tying this back to the Arizona immigration fight. He is a police officer and is there to report the facts not offer his subjective musings on perceived societal ills.

[jerseyhoya34]

I stand with all who have raised the Palin nexus (however weak it is). Her camp would not have found it necessary to launch surrogates and issue numerous statements, even after scrubbing the site, if the thing was kosher in the first place. By scrubbing sites etc., many groups have inserted themselves into the facts of the case. Only Sarah Palin could look at the incredible violence of yesterday and try to portray herself as the victim. That is what is despicable but I can understand why she's focused such energy on it.

You can bet that the investigators will mine some of these sites (like Free Republic) for any profile that Loughner had.

[williambraskyiii]

Jan 9, 2011 17:51:33 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I stand with all who have raised the Palin nexus (however weak it is). Her camp would not have found it necessary to launch surrogates and issue numerous statements, even after scrubbing the site, if the thing was kosher in the first place. By scrubbing sites etc., many groups have inserted themselves into the facts of the case. Only Sarah Palin could look at the incredible violence of yesterday and try to portray herself as the victim. That is what is despicable but I can understand why she's focused such energy on it.

You can bet that the investigators will mine some of these sites (like Free Republic) for any profile that Loughner had.

And reasonable minds will reserve judgment until the outcome of any such investigations rather than lob baseless accusations for political gain.

[jerseyhoya34]

No need for political gain - the same warnings have been given consistently at the time that these violent statements have been made. The gain will be when this kind of rhetoric is out of our politics.

One could just as easily say that the "senseless psycho" portrayal is politically motivated at this time. We don't have a diagnosis as far as I'm aware but one will certainly be forthcoming even if negative. We do have statements from the suspect that he knew what he was doing, so not psycho beyond all recognition.

[jerseyhoya34]

www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47329.html

Here is more on that wild mind control grammar stuff. It turns out that there's something real about it insofar as there are books about it etc. An important report from Politico.

[EasyEd]

There is no evidence that the tone of political speech is any worse than at any other time in U.S. history. Nor is there any evidence that this shooter was influenced by any such speech. What is evident, however, is that the left in this country is attempting to make political capital from this event. This is evident from the postings on this thread that accuse conservatives of fostering an atmosphere leading to the shooting without accusing liberals in any way of using much the same language.

[jerseyhoya34]

There is evidence that there have been a record number of threats against the President. There was a 400% increase since Obama has been elected. Increasingly we've seen members pushed to online forums for their town halls. Why? Rhetoric and threat reports. I don't care if they intend for it to occur or not - it is clear that the effect is there so good to do something about it.

Law enforcement - and I do agree that the Sheriff was out of line - has pointed out particular issues in Arizona that probably merit more attention than they've received. I would suggest that some of this is no accident, and, to suggest otherwise is as politically motivated (to avoid responsibility for cleaning things up and avoid discussion of whether these statements were appropriate), not to mention naive. To put it politely, the accusations that someone would be politically motivated in pointing some of these things out is disgusting. We want our country and political leaders to be secure, thank you, and hate rhetoric does for some domestic groups/individuals what it does for Al Qaeda.

I know the DLC put out a target map years ago with targets placed on states, rather than targets with congresspersons listed. The DLC was probably mistaken in doing so. If there is a record of elected Democrats calling their colleagues "dead man" by name and similar rhetoric, please post it so we know who not to support moving forward.

In terms of a calculated effort to make political hay, may I direct you to the talking points released by the tea party or Rand Paul's musings about gun control?

[Nevada Hoya]

Jan 9, 2011 19:51:38 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

There is no evidence that the tone of political speech is any worse than at any other time in U.S. history. Nor is there any evidence that this shooter was influenced by any such speech. What is evident, however, is that the left in this country is attempting to make political capital from this event. This is evident from the postings on this thread that accuse conservatives of fostering an atmosphere leading to the shooting without accusing liberals in any way of using much the same language.

Ed, I think the internet has contributed to much, much more political speeches than anytime in history. Under the cloak of anonymity you have many weirdos espousing bizarre political standings. And many of those have anti-government leanings; not just differing with the government but quite vigorous feelings.

[strummer8526]

Jan 9, 2011 19:51:38 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

There is no evidence that the tone of political speech is any worse than at any other time in U.S. history. Nor is there any evidence that this shooter was influenced by any such speech. What is evident, however, is that the left in this country is attempting to make political capital from this event. This is evident from the postings on this thread that accuse conservatives of fostering an atmosphere leading to the shooting without accusing liberals in any way of using much the same language.

Show me maps with bullseyes and targets all over the place created by Democrats (as I now see Ambassador admits did exist), and I will condemn those, too. I don't think it's a stretch for us all to agree that politicians shouldn't go around implying, in even the weakest terms, that shooting someone else is a good thing. And no, I'm not trying to "make political capital" here. In fact, I can't even imagine what "political capital" would be for me. I'd just prefer our already-disgraceful national political discourse not devolve even further.

Maybe we can agree that Aaron Burr is not the model Founding Father?

[The Stig]

Jan 9, 2011 19:51:38 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This is evident from the postings on this thread that accuse conservatives of fostering an atmosphere leading to the shooting without accusing liberals in any way of using much the same language.

Several liberals in this thread have explicitly denounced violent political rhetoric from liberals as well as conservatives

[RusskyHoya]

Jan 9, 2011 17:06:25 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Yeah, that'd be my bet too. See sports and war references after 9/11.

A memo that likely never did make its way to Alaska...

Jan 9, 2011 20:52:59 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Maybe we can agree that Aaron Burr is not the model Founding Father?

And Preston Brooks is a pretty safe bet to never make the Congressional Hall of Fame.

I would say that what sets the U.S. apart is not the mildness or non-violence of its political culture - Jim Crow was nothing if not a widespread system of political violence - but the fact that it has almost never led to outright rebellion, revolution, coup d'etat, schism, violent overthrow of the legitimate government, etc. With the obvious exception of the Civil War, all of these instances have been fairly minor (e.g. the Shays, Whiskey, and Fries's Rebellions, the Dorr Rebellion, the Battle of Athens, etc.).

[jerseyhoya34]

The Palin Facebook thread was a spoof. That being said, there's something about the lock/unload rubbish that permeates her stuff that seems inherently violent. Andrew Sullivan had great coverage of this today.

[RusskyHoya]

Jan 9, 2011 21:40:04 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

The Palin Facebook thread was a spoof.

Right, the point of the spoof was to get across the message that there is nothing wrong with that sort of sports-as-war rhetoric and that criticism of it amounts to "New Politically Correct Language Police Censorship."

[TC]

Jan 9, 2011 21:51:22 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

Right, the point of the spoof was to get across the message that there is nothing wrong with that sort of sports-as-war rhetoric and that criticism of it amounts to "New Politically Correct Language Police Censorship."

Then why did she retreat rather than reload and take down the crosshair map and start pumping out weak excuses like those weren't even gun crosshairs? "Guys! They were just map legends!"

If it was defensible, she'd be defending it. It isn't so she's scrubbing it, in an internet era where it doesn't matter whether you take it down or not - it's still out there.

And don't get me wrong - I'm not one of the people yelling that Sarah Palin has blood on her hands, blah blah - but political tone does matter and she ignored that.

[HoyaFM]

GU student was at the shooting, per The Voice. Intern for Giffords.
blog.georgetownvoice.com/2011/01/09/georgetown-sophomore-a-witness-to-tragedy-in-tucson/

[TBird41]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that the political climate should get some blame. This guy was probably spurred on by violent rhetoric. I mean, crazy people are going to seize on important political activists "bulls-eyeing" Giffords and act on major politicians saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

[jerseyhoya34]

Jan 9, 2011 23:22:22 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that the political climate should get some blame. This guy was probably spurred on by violent rhetoric. I mean, crazy people are going to seize on important political activists "bulls-eyeing" Giffords and act on major politicians saying "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

The RNC seized on the knife/gun comment quickly, as they should have. Still, it seems colloquial compared to calling someone a dead man directly or putting someone in the crosshairs. By refusing to apologize and by identifying people by name, Sarah Palin wrote the story for the journalists.

Regardless, there's a reason for all of the threats against the President, and our country as a matter of Homeland Security might do well to ask why that is and who is making them.