TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 9, 2011 23:46:42 GMT -5
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. 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. And everyone seized on the Palin thing right away. My only point is that it wasn't about the rhetoric. Not only was the violent rhetoric coming from both sides--Palin, Daily Kos, Obama, the Tea Party, Joe Manchin, everyone--everyone that doesn't have a mental illness knows its just rhetoric. The guy was almost assuredly a schizophrenic. He was going to end up violent no matter what happened because it's a degenerative, chronic disease. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,909
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 9, 2011 23:50:18 GMT -5
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. Er, I'm not sure I understand. Right now, when we're in our period of navel gazing over political tone and a congresswoman is fighting for her life, there's little to be gained - and a lot to be lost - by saying or implying anything other than "this is terrible and I abhor violence." Besides, it's not like Palin is actually a violent revolutionary, and as a high-profile political figure herself, it's not really in her interest for violence against politicians to become more accepted or widespread. This is very different from sports-as-war metaphors, which are a proud and long-standing American tradition, particularly among folks who do approach sports with a life-or-death matter of seriousness. Her base contains many such folks. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jan 10, 2011 0:10:33 GMT -5
Er, I'm not sure I understand. Right now, when we're in our period of navel gazing over political tone and a congresswoman is fighting for her life, there's little to be gained - and a lot to be lost - by saying or implying anything other than "this is terrible and I abhor violence." Besides, it's not like Palin is actually a violent revolutionary, and as a high-profile political figure herself, it's not really in her interest for violence against politicians to become more accepted or widespread. I guess I don't understand you either - how does removing or not removing something previously on a site constitute "saying" anything? She could have easily left it up on the site without remark. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 10, 2011 0:10:57 GMT -5
While he may be schizophrenic, any linkage between that disease and violence appears misplaced at best. Most schizophrenics are nonviolent. Violence typically occurs in private settings, etc. To say violence is inevitable from it does not appear supportable. psychcentral.com/lib/2006/schizophrenia-and-violence/I am not sure how this psychological discussion is any less speculative than other discussions in the thread. There is evidence that he attended a prior meet and greet with Giffords and premeditated. Without more, I'd tend to the side that he knew what he was doing and is criminally responsible. Some of the discussion in the media of his apparent illness has become so ridiculous/overblown that you wonder whether rhetorical ground is being conceded on mens rea and competency to stand trial. |
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,909
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 10, 2011 0:31:57 GMT -5
Er, I'm not sure I understand. Right now, when we're in our period of navel gazing over political tone and a congresswoman is fighting for her life, there's little to be gained - and a lot to be lost - by saying or implying anything other than "this is terrible and I abhor violence." Besides, it's not like Palin is actually a violent revolutionary, and as a high-profile political figure herself, it's not really in her interest for violence against politicians to become more accepted or widespread. I guess I don't understand you either - how does removing or not removing something previously on a site constitute "saying" anything? She could have easily left it up on the site without remark. Once it became an issue and started getting wide play, some sort of response became necessary - it wasn't something she could simply ignore. Inaction would be a response just as action was. In this case, inaction was judged to be an inferior option. If you're saying that there's something contradictory about taking it down but at the same time saying "they're not really gun sights!" then there's certainly a good deal of truth to that, but it wouldn't be the first time a politician has tried to play it both ways in order to maneuver out of a fraught situation. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 10, 2011 1:49:55 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 10, 2011 1:58:54 GMT -5
From early reports, it seems he left behind a manifesto about the shooting, assuming he'd be killed on the scene. That definitely leads to premeditation, so I don't know how an insanity defense will hold up. Any Hoya lawyers want to comment?
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 10, 2011 7:25:55 GMT -5
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. Here's where Palin screwed up. When the "liberal media" started imitating that her political rhetoric was responsible for the act ( a ludicrous link) she should have just said something like, "you know, golly gee folks, that's not what we intended at all, but maybe in the future we'll use other metaphors.". Then, when people would continue to come after her, she would have had a great talking point about libals trying to make political hay out of a tragedy. Instead, she insults our intelligence with equally ludicrous defenses about surveyors symbols. It doesn't even make sense, Sarah! Why be so dishonest ( intellectually and otherwise)? Why do politicians default immediately to lie to cover up ( affairs, corruption, impropriety) rather than just admit and move on? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 10, 2011 8:53:01 GMT -5
Paul krugman hits the nail on the head???
No, Paul Krugman is a miserable, loathsome human being who hasn't taken his blinders off in, well, forever.
There are a few things I am certain of today:
Metaphors of attack have been used equally by both sides in Politics since time immemorial.
This will continue to happen.
Deranged people will continue to commit acts of lunacy for reasons that will defy explanation because, um, they're deranged.
Sarah Palin could have put pictures of puppies up on her website and it wouldn't have changed this lunatic's mind about what he felt he needed to do.
Paul Krugman is an ass (of this I am the most certain).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 10, 2011 9:02:49 GMT -5
Paul krugman hits the nail on the head??? No, Paul Krugman is a miserable, loathsome human being who hasn't taken his blinders off in, well, forever. There are a few things I am certain of today: Metaphors of attack have been used equally by both sides in Politics since time immemorial. This will continue to happen. Deranged people will continue to commit acts of lunacy for reasons that will defy explanation because, um, they're deranged. Sarah Palin could have put pictures of puppies up on her website and it wouldn't have changed this lunatic's mind about what he felt he needed to do. Paul Krugman is an ass (of this I am the most certain). Well put. I also have no problem w/ Tables saying that Palin had a tone deaf reaction to this tragedy. I also would like to hear someone who thinks that Republicans have some fault in this explain what differentiates this situation from the Ft. Hood shooting (aside from schizophrenia) in terms of blaming leading members of the group which is associated with the shooter for creating a climate of hate. Why aren't people being slow to rush for judgment here? spectator.org/blog/2011/01/10/a-study-in-contrasts-nyt-on-ft |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 10, 2011 9:04:03 GMT -5
From early reports, it seems he left behind a manifesto about the shooting, assuming he'd be killed on the scene. That definitely leads to premeditation, so I don't know how an insanity defense will hold up. Any Hoya lawyers want to comment? I don't think he's going to get an insanity defense. That doesn't mean he doesn't have schizophrenia. The way our criminal justice system handles the mentally ill is deeply flawed. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 10, 2011 9:09:16 GMT -5
I'll admit it, Sarah Palin is responsible for this tragedy. By her targeting people she is blatantly asking her supporters to use violence against anyone that disagrees with her. There, I've said what some on this board are inferring without having the guts to say it outright.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jan 10, 2011 9:40:13 GMT -5
Once it became an issue and started getting wide play, some sort of response became necessary - it wasn't something she could simply ignore. Inaction would be a response just as action was. This is nonsense. It was taken down almost immediately before it even started getting wide play. The removal compounded the problem. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 10, 2011 9:40:17 GMT -5
For some perspective. The political rhetoric today is nowhere in the neighborhood of that which existed on the left during the Vietnam War. Anti-war rhetoric and violence took place every day. The Pentagon was bombed, other defense establishments were violently attacked, the Kent State tragedy occurred, something happened, is seemed, every day. Anti-war demonstators camped out on the Georgetown campus. Try comparing that to the rhetoric of today. Not even close.
In my lifetime Franklin Roosevelt was shot at in Miami, Puerto Ricans attempted to attack Truman in the Blair House, other Puerto Ricans opened fire in Congress, JFK was shot, Martin Luther King was shot, Robert Kennedy was shot, Governor Wallace was shot, Gerald Ford was shot at twice, Reagan was shot, all in the U.S. of A. And, I'm sure I left out some others. The latest shooting but continues what has taken place in the political arena for years and years and represents nothing more than a deranged individual doing a horrible deed.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 10, 2011 10:02:11 GMT -5
EasyEd, I would draw a distinction between the rhetoric of the left comprised of the student radicals and left-wing academia as opposed to anti-war politicians holding office or running for office. I don't believe Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey, or George McGovern ever engaged in the type of rhetoric we see now from both the left and right. If my memory is incorrect, I would love to have my fading memory corrected. To me, the political rhetoric seen today is simply a coarsening of our politics that reflects the coarsening of American society. The anti-government rhetoric came from the radical leftist students/academia. Today, it comes from mainstream politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 10, 2011 11:00:28 GMT -5
It seems like we've reached the "hit back hard" phase of the talking points with some obvious moral equivalence (see fishing for random poster on DailyKos and compare to Sarah Palin, John Boehner, and the like). And hiding behind Professor Ayers...really? The loathsome human beings are those who cheer "Kill Obama" or "Bomb Obama" and the like at political rallies - call him a terrorist - and refuse to apologize when referring to political opponents as "dead man."
The only question I have is how many more people need to be spat upon, shot at, and demonized before the rhetoric is toned down? Does the President need to be shot at before we raise concerns? Terrorist threats against him are up 400% over Bush levels, and 300% raise as to members of Congress. As a matter of Homeland Security, I think that should raise a flag and warrant scrutiny.
The difference I see with Fort Hood is that there's a political group in this country that became scared out of its mind that the shooter could have been one of them. That's why you saw the Palin scrubbing - don't think for a minute they weren't thinking that it was possible he saw that image (and he may have whether it motivated him or not) - the Free Republic take down, and the like. The political right knows that this story is not a winner for them, right or wrong, and the response has been politically off at best.
These concerns are not new. One wise man once said, "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work." He lost to John Boehner. The question, with everyone now on the most crude of notices, is whether you take the risk of it happening again and make statements similar to what we've heard before.
It is a disservice to hide behind the veil of mental illness to explain away beliefs in irrational ideas. There are plenty of rational people who bought the death panel canard, for example. There are plenty of rational people who believe Obama raises taxes. There are plenty of otherwise rational people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or don't believe newspaper reports of his birth.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 10, 2011 11:38:57 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 10, 2011 11:53:23 GMT -5
I'll admit it, Sarah Palin is responsible for this tragedy. By her targeting people she is blatantly asking her supporters to use violence against anyone that disagrees with her. There, I've said what some on this board are inferring without having the guts to say it outright. To be clear, I wasn't and I don't think anyone else thinks she's responsible in any way. Clearly it was a psycho, as it has been in virtually all of the incidents you listed, Ed. Which is why, as much as I want to look at this event and say "see, this is why we need more gun control" (how does someone with this guy's track record walk into a store and buy one?) or say, "see, this is why we need better access to all types of health care" (shouldn't someone have picked up and helped this guy out?), the reality is that crazy people have always and will always find ways to be crazy, and there's nothing we can really do about it. Tragedies happen and what makes them tragic is often that they are senseless and unpredictable and unstoppable. There's no political point to made -- or gained -- by any side on this one. Other than, perhaps, how quickly we all move to the political. I shamefully admit my initial reaction was to assume it was a right-winger, and furthermore was to look for some sort of "lesson". But there is none to be learned other than crazy people are crazy, bad things happen to good people, and there are everyday heroes all around us. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 10, 2011 11:55:27 GMT -5
Just more moral equivalence. Nowhere in there was there a statement of personal targeting - like you see with the dead man reference, the crosshairs, and similar things. Now, the statement should not have been made, but its recounting here only reflects the degree to which the fishing has reached the bottom of the barrel.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Jan 10, 2011 12:02:20 GMT -5
It is a disservice to hide behind the veil of mental illness to explain away beliefs in irrational ideas. There are plenty of rational people who bought the death panel canard, for example. There are plenty of rational people who believe Obama raises taxes. There are plenty of otherwise rational people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or don't believe newspaper reports of his birth. See, my politics are pretty closely aligned with yours, Ambassador, and I just don't buy this. Truly educated and rational people don't buy this. And Lord knows the Dems do their own work to promote and push the irrational. Eight years of "Bush is an idiot." Years of looking for racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia in every little event, even when it's not there. Holding up oil-covered animals or dead soldiers as sacrificial lambs while masking or ignoring the basic dependence we all share on oil. Focusing on "cuts on services" without responsibly addressing the reality of paying for it all. We all use rhetoric to make our points -- right and left, liberal and conservative, older and younger, rich and poor, upper and lower class, and everyone in between. What all sides -- and the journalists and pundits who cover them -- are guilty of are failing to look past the rhetoric and engage in a real dialogue about the complexity and the issues that we all are responsible for addressing. Thus ends your "West Wing" sermon for the day. |
|
