Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2350851

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.
Click to expand...
Each and every one of those threats was an offense and had just one of them been prosecuted it would have resulted in the suspect being blacklisted in the NICS database - and thus he would not have been able to buy the gun he shot the people in Tuscon with.
Click to expand...

Might be why he was able to buy a gun.
 
I'm surprised no one has yet said "Well if MORE people had guns, then somebody could have capped his ass before more people got killed."

I think EVERY situation where this fucking stupid shit happens should bring up another round of gun control debate. Maybe not change, but at least debate.
 
Not from what I can tell, but the source is a columnist for the Arizona News-Telegraph. (info appeared on his personal blog)

We'll find out in the coming days if the allegations are true. Loughner's mother does appear to work for the Pima County Parks and Recreation division as a Natural Resource Specialist (her contact info has since been removed from the Pima County website).
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2350851



Might be why he was able to buy a gun.[/QUOTE]
Reports I've read said he already had a criminal record though, shouldn't that have been enough to prevent him from buying it? Which from what NPR was saying earlier, Arizona has some of the weakest gun control laws in the country.
 
Would depend what the criminal record was for. If no felonies and no violent crimes of any kind, a record wouldn't necessarily matter obviously.
 
Dude they're stated as fact, and there is nothing to back it up. The article you cited even says 'you better hope this isn't true'.

Until I hear the same thing from some credible news organization, I'm not going to believe it. This is the $200 million India trip all over again.


EDIT: found this exchange in the comments:


Please provide a link for these reports. If it is the police dept., why did you not provide the link to them. I totally believe this, but need a link as proof, not just your word for it. I have no idea how to find this info out. How did you? Thanks for providing this!

c1853bc1568eb36e8c1c37d3bf82742a
lovingmyUSA
January 10, 2011 at 3:28 am

Reply

  • The source is confidential. The documentation never made it to public record as of yet. I imagine it will be part of the prosecutions case in the future. The FBI will have all of that documentation soon.

    62cfc11224b2eb71c1cbf490fe3ffb8e
    thechollajumps
    January 10, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Reply
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, this thread sure blew up today...
[quote name='Purple Flames']Well if I can say anything, at least my fuck up made us momentarily forget about the troubles of the world :lol:

Anyways, everybody's favorite tragedy-exploiting attention-seeking hate group is coming to protest the funeral of a 9-year old girl:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/westboro_bapstis_church_to_pro.php[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there is a group being put together on Facebook to go to the funeral on Thursday and make a human wall to block the protestors from view of the funeral goers. If I didn't have work I would go help.

Wouldn't be surprised if their tires are slashed again.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/westboro-protesters-have-tires-slashed-during-weekend-face-off/
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Wow, this thread sure blew up today...

Yeah, there is a group being put together on Facebook to go to the funeral on Thursday and make a human wall to block the protestors from view of the funeral goers. If I didn't have work I would go help.

Wouldn't be surprised if their tires are slashed again.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/westboro-protesters-have-tires-slashed-during-weekend-face-off/[/QUOTE]

Remember that thing about free speech....yeah.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Remember that thing about free speech....yeah.[/QUOTE]
What thing about free speech exactly? There's a lot of "things about free speech".
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']What thing about free speech exactly? There's a lot of "things about free speech".[/QUOTE]

Blah Blah Blah heated political speech that's giving the wink to violence a-ok, defend it to the death...like four people standing outside of a cemetery yelling hurtful things, we need to pass a law where they have to stand 500 feet away and than we'll build a human wall around them and maybe slash their tires
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Blah Blah Blah heated political speech that's giving the wink to violence a-ok, defend it to the death...like four people standing outside of a cemetery yelling hurtful things, we need to pass a law where they have to stand 500 feet away and than we'll build a human wall around them and maybe slash their tires[/QUOTE]
What are you smoking? You're COMPLETELY incoherent. Aren't you the one who was complaining the other day about people not paying attention to you so you don't take the time to write in depth in the vs forum? If that was you, I'm starting to think the truth is the other way around. No one pays attention to you because you have a total lack of respect for those who disagree with you and you just sort of mumble incomplete, incoherent phrases at people.

I'm assuming that you're saying I'm against free speech, for anti-free speech laws, pro-violence and in favor of vandalism. If so, again, you are on crack. All of that is false. But there is nothing wrong with peacefully using your body to shield grieving families from pure evil in human form.

Now, if you want to have further discussion, sober up and start writing complete thoughts and sentences. Sorry, but no matter how nice I am to you, you just seem constantly angry and rude. I'm a little tired of it. Can't you comprehend that people can disagree and still be civil to one another?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Anti-intellectualism isn't a new thing in the 21st or 20th centuries. That said, *access* is a relatively new thing. Industrialization required specialization training (i.e., education) until it evolved (Weber's rationalization) to a point where the division of labor is so great that you can staff a factory with simpletons who just push the button to make the machine work (ideal/theoretical, not actual, of course).

Pre-industrialization, formal education was not required (let alone mandated), and was considered something of a leisure activity. It was something the upper classes had time to do. Instead of racking up your Xbox gamerscore, you read and discussed literature, philosophy, politics, fine arts, music, etc. People who had to labor for a meager living didn't have time for that nonsense. They worked from sun-up to sun-down.

But, again, industrialization (and the gains made in industrial labor thanks to union action - a minimum wage, safety standards, weekends off and 40-hour weeks) allowed all classes time for leisure activity. Combine access to leisure with the need for education, and you have social conditions where intellectualism is theoretically available to everyone. But that didn't mean that everyone had to accept or believe in it.

But in that time, the mass has always had disdain for aspects of culture considered intellectual, to some degree. It's certainly not fueled completely by class - as class envy fuels many of our cultural trends and purchasing decisions (i.e., culture embraces the clothing, cars, alcohol, and frivolousness of those deemed wealthy, but not intellectual endeavors). There's no status to having a discussion about Marx and Engels to the degree there is status that comes from having a hot car. You certainly ain't gettin' a BJ at the club because you decided to play the cello instead of drive a Maserati.

There's something more substantive to what I'm trying to say, but I'm kinda tired and stressed today. So...yeah. Much of our political culture is not only uninterested in science and empiricism, as dmaul points out, vehemently against policies based on scientifically-derived knowledge. Culturally, we love our guts more than our scientists.

I've never read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," but there's a reason it sells so well: its primary thesis is this you, dear reader, prejudge everyone you meet the moment you meet them. And you're actually better at it than people give you credit for. So keep doing it.[/QUOTE]


I understand most of this, your points on access are valid and something I never really thought about, but most of what you said I am familiar with. I was keeping my points straight to recent American culture, going no further than the 1890's populist movement and their disdain of intellectuals. I will probably re read this post tomorrow as I am also tired from cooking all day and feel I may have missed something.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']What are you smoking? You're COMPLETELY incoherent. Aren't you the one who was complaining the other day about people not paying attention to you so you don't take the time to write in depth in the vs forum? If that was you, I'm starting to think the truth is the other way around. No one pays attention to you because you have a total lack of respect for those who disagree with you and you just sort of mumble incomplete, incoherent phrases at people.

I'm assuming that you're saying I'm against free speech, for anti-free speech laws, pro-violence and in favor of vandalism. If so, again, you are on crack. All of that is false. But there is nothing wrong with peacefully using your body to shield grieving families from pure evil in human form.

Now, if you want to have further discussion, sober up and start writing complete thoughts and sentences. Sorry, but no matter how nice I am to you, you just seem constantly angry and rude. I'm a little tired of it. Can't you comprehend that people can disagree and still be civil to one another?[/QUOTE]

Ugh, do I really have to spell it out?

Here we go.

[quote name='Sporadic']Blah Blah Blah heated political speech that's giving the wink to violence a-ok[/QUOTE]

What most people (including yourself) said after news came of that one Senator wanting to pass a bill banning violent rhetoric against congress members/federal employees.

[quote name='Sporadic']defend it to the death[/QUOTE]

What most people say about free speech.

[quote name='Sporadic']like four people standing outside of a cemetery yelling hurtful things[/QUOTE]

Westboro Baptist Church

[quote name='Sporadic']we need to pass a law where they have to stand 500 feet away[/QUOTE]

already happened in regards to them

[quote name='Sporadic']and than we'll build a human wall around them[/QUOTE]

what you want to do to them even though they are only exercising their free speech rights (I thought that was a good thing that should be tolerated even if we don't like what is being said?)

[quote name='Sporadic']and maybe slash their tires[/QUOTE]

Something you brought up but didn't condemn. Maybe you will now but considering you think of them as "pure evil in human form", I doubt you'll mean it.

[quote name='MorPhiend']Sorry, but no matter how nice I am to you, you just seem constantly angry and rude.[/QUOTE]

Yes, how nice you are to me. Saying I'm embarrassing myself, I take things too personally, sarcastically calling me classy, I'm incoherent, I'm on drugs.

Or calling dohdough a "typical lefty bomb thrower". Yup, no malice is behind that type of comment. Clearly that is nothing but respect for somebody that holds a different view than you.

[quote name='MorPhiend']Can't you comprehend that people can disagree and still be civil to one another?[/QUOTE]

There is disagreeing and there is playing dumb/talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are doing the latter and that doesn't deserve real posts or me being civil in response.
 
It also appears that many of you get to take your own medicine now, as the killer is pegged by the media as big "gamer". Way to go, supporting an industry that promotes murder.

http://kotaku.com/5730082/arizona-shooter-pegged-as-big-video-gamer-by-classmates

Just keeping the blame-train steaming along. Which group should we attack next?


Any time there is a mass killing by a psychopath, there are three constants:

1) The gun debate will flame up
2) The media will quickly blame talk radio
3) Msutt will assume the murderer was a right wing nut job.
 
Joe Manachin is a Democrat by virtue of his party. If you listen to the substance of the ad clip O'Reilly showed, he's a moderate conservative on his best day. What I'm trying to say is that O'Reilly would have never shown that ad in this bit if Machin claimed (R) - and that's the only thing really separating him from being a Republican, truth be told. So it's a matter of convenience for O'Reilly to avoid lumping him in with right politics.

As for the Chris Matthews bit, is that the best he can do? I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the Live and Let Die metaphor (I'm a bad James Bond fan, I suppose).

O'Reilly also diminished the significant meaning of the Palin targets by not mentioning its full context, which involved tweets about "reloading" as well as encouragements to "fire your M16s" to get Democrats out of office.

Lastly, he went out of his way to avoid Glenn Beck fantasizing about murdering Michael Moore himself, and of course he stayed away from Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment solutions."

Keith Olbermann had the dignity to apologize for any violent rhetoric he may have espoused (and if he did, lord knows we'd have heard it from FOX by now), and he also promised to curtail it in the future. You get no such promise from the people who are encouraging violence and using hyperbole to enrage and motivate their base.

That's the point - Republicans are trying to mitigate their ugly side, and sweep under the rug virulent talk that can't be mitigated. They refuse to accept any responsibility for their words.
 
Is this a better example of the bi-partisan nature of what your complaining about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be

Or how about Obama saying (Referring to Republicans) "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". Is that not a good example of an "Ugly Side" for your favorite party?

But that isn't the point. It doesn't matter if it is a good example of Democrats/Libs being just as bad. No matter how many examples your or I throw up here about "ugly rhetoric", it's still missing the point.


Nice attempt at trying to rebuff each clip in the O'Reilly video, while at the same time missing the entire point it was trying to make. Try taking a step back from the mud fight and look at the big picture here.

Whenever a madman decides to kill a bunch of people, there isn't always a lesson to be learned. There isn't always a political agenda at hand. It doesn't always have to be made into a "useful tragedy" for someone's agenda. The fact that we don't know how to deal with tragedy in this country any other way is a grand statement for the sad affair this country is in.

Every time an attempt is made, by you, another CAG, or anyone in the media, to somehow USE this tragedy to make a political point about your ideological enemies, you not only dig your hole deeper but you shame this country further. It's groundless, baseless, and disgusting.

With the topic at hand, with this psycho murderer there is no responsibility to take - FROM ANYONE. That is the point, and it seems to be a point you will go on to refuse.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']With the topic at hand, with this psycho murderer there is no responsibility to take - FROM ANYONE. That is the point, and it seems to be a point you will go on to refuse.[/QUOTE]

That's precisely what I reject, though. The "lone nut" framework is one that tries to stifle discussion. There is, implicit in that claim, nothing to discover behind the killing that can be tied to political discourse - there is no desire to search for causal factors. That's bothersome and rather frightening to me, that we don't want to examine or analyze what drove a person to do what they did.
 
There is a difference between examining a person to determine why they did what they did and what you and the media are doing though.

If you suddenly snapped and killed 10 people (god forbid), would we have to examine Catholicism? Bars? Alcohol? The Democratic Party? Paul Krugman? CAG? Video Games? Roller Derby? Wrestling? Doctorate programs? University tenure? The cancelation of She-Ra?

Do we, as a society, need to examine each and every one of those things because of what you did? Do we need to scrutinize everything you were ever associated with or interested in and rethink whether we should regulate any of them further to prevent this from happening again?

(Of course, this is all pretending there even was substantial proof there was a legitimate group, interest, or political ideology associated with Arizona nutjob, which there isn't)

Abso-fucking-lutely not.

It behooves those that surrounded you directly in your life to think back and wonder if there were any signs they should have seen, or if they should have taken any action. That's natural. But it's absolutely not natural for an entire society and nation to take your insane decision to murder and use it as an example on horseback in some holy political crusade against any of the entities in the above list.

It takes a village my ass.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It behooves those that surrounded you directly in your life to think back and wonder if there were any signs they should have seen, or if they should have taken any action. That's natural. But it's absolutely not natural for an entire society and nation to take your insane decision to murder and use it as an example on horseback in some holy political crusade against any of the entities in the above list.

It takes a village my ass.[/QUOTE]

It sounds to me like you're making the argument that the murder of a federal judge and the attempted murder of a federal congresswoman, made by a person who was indeed aware that this was his congresswoman, was done independent of anything political in nature.

Are you arguing that?
 
For thrust the best way to deal with a tragedy like this is to basically give no thought as to why it may have happened, but to just chalk it up to "he's a nut".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']There is a difference between examining a person to determine why they did what they did and what you and the media are doing though.

If you suddenly snapped and killed 10 people (god forbid), would we have to examine Catholicism? Bars? Alcohol? The Democratic Party? Paul Krugman? CAG? Video Games? Roller Derby? Wrestling? Doctorate programs? University tenure? The cancelation of She-Ra?

Do we, as a society, need to examine each and every one of those things because of what you did? Do we need to scrutinize everything you were ever associated with or interested in and rethink whether we should regulate any of them further to prevent this from happening again?

(Of course, this is all pretending there even was substantial proof there was a legitimate group, interest, or political ideology associated with Arizona nutjob, which there isn't)

Abso-fucking-lutely not.
[/QUOTE]

Ideally, we would have funding and resources to study crime with that level of detail, rather than just having a bunch of half baked theories in criminology tested with limited samples and poor data.

Now some of what you say goes to far, as certain things shouldn't be regulated. As I said, in all but very extreme instances of clear incitements to violence, I'd never support any restrictions of free speech just because some whackos latch on to rhetoric to justify violence and or chose their targets etc.

But we should be making such efforts to understand why crimes occur so we can come up with better strategies to prevent them. And that's never going to happen anytime soon with the pathetically small amount of research funding for crime and justice relative to other areas.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did thrust ever see Hotel Rwanda?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Who doesn't like Don Cheadle?

[quote name='mykevermin']It sounds to me like you're making the argument that the murder of a federal judge and the attempted murder of a federal congresswoman, made by a person who was indeed aware that this was his congresswoman, was done independent of anything political in nature.

Are you arguing that?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not.

I'm arguing that trying to find any and everything that a bad person has ever been associated with in their life, so that it can be demonized, blamed, and defamed is a very very dangerous thing to do. Not to mention it's morally wrong (imo).

Are you arguing that everyone is a product of their environment and has little personal responsibility or control in their choices and actions? It sounds like you are.

[quote name='Clak']For thrust the best way to deal with a tragedy like this is to basically give no thought as to why it may have happened, but to just chalk it up to "he's a nut".[/QUOTE]

You haven't been listening.

It's fine to study THAT PERSON and study THAT PERSON'S life and figure out why THAT PERSON made THEIR CHOICES and why THAT PERSON's biology might have contributed.

It's reprehensible to act as if some outward influence must be identified and thus blamed. It's morally wrong to take a tragedy and try to blame anything and everything but the person that committed it. Especially to the extent that the media is on a reverse witch hunt, taking everything they despise and trying their best to attach it to a murderer.

It's like society has decided that nobody is really responsible for their actions anymore. We are all just products of our environment and we can't help our behavior, good or bad. So we need to make sure we have Orewellian environmental controls are just right so no bad things every happen. That's really what this is starting to feel like. That really seems to be what some of you are arguing.

I hope to god we find out this murderers favorite website was dailykos. It won't mean a thing to me, but hopefully it will stop this insane vitriolic nonsense flying everywhere.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Are you arguing that everyone is a product of their environment and has little personal responsibility or control in their choices and actions? It sounds like you are.
[/QUOTE]

There are mental illnesses etc. that have biological roots, sure.

But, yes, by in large most human behavior is shaped by environmental factors. Or more accurately--the interaction of biological/genetic determinants and environmental factors. Research is pretty solid on these things.

Now that doesn't absolve people of personal responsibility when they do fucked up things.

But it does say that we should be studying the hell out of these things in multiple fields (parenting, education, urban planning, psychology, criminology etc. etc.) to figure out what can be done to improve society.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The whole "just a lone crazy man" thing is an utter cop out.[/QUOTE]

This cook took it to a whole new level saying it was god who sent the shooter.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The whole "just a lone crazy man" thing is an utter cop out.[/QUOTE]

It is to some extent. But not totally. The guy's a nut job and would have done something like this eventually anyway most likely. Maybe with the political rhetoric he decided to target a politician instead of just shooting up random people in a shopping mall etc.

So I think some go to far by blaming that a violent act happened on the political rhetoric. When it's more the case of the specific target of the violent act was chosen because of the rhetoric rather than the violence being caused by the rhetoric.

Again, I turn to the violent media and school shooting stuff. There's no doubt in my mind that violent media plays some role in some shootings etc. by desensitizing people to violence etc. But I don't think it causes people to commit violence. It's just one small push along that fucked up path for already fucked up people.

The only way to try to limit these kind of tragedy's is by finding out why people become fucked up and trying to remedy societal ills that lead to it, try to identify people at risk and what kind of help they need etc. Not by trying to tone down violent media or political rhetoric. And on that front I think it's a bit hypocritical to ask for the rhetoric to be toned down if you don't also think violent media should be toned down.
 
[quote name='MediaMatters']Whether that rhetoric played a role in the gun massacre that erupted at the Tucson shopping center on Saturday, we don’t yet know[/quote]

...but let's go ahead and write a whole article about how it did.

I wonder when Obama will denounce the violent spewings of Bill Ayers.
 
are we drawing a distinction between politics and the arts?

Is Paul McCartney responsible for the death of Sharon Tate?

There are countless examples of defense lawyers using artists as scapegoats for their client's murders.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, I turn to the violent media and school shooting stuff. There's no doubt in my mind that violent media plays some role in some shootings etc. by desensitizing people to violence etc. But I don't think it causes people to commit violence. It's just one small push along that fucked up path for already fucked up people.[/QUOTE]

Cause versus influence, right. Not the same thing, and while I will fully argue influence, I (and many others, like you) aren't saying "cause."

I don't totally buy media effects, largely because the research is 'mixed' at best, w/ most results showing no causal relationship. Chalk those results up to the near-universality of us watching violence on our teevees damn near every day.

OT, however, I finally got around to playing COD4 (yeah, yeah, yeah) over winter break...and I have to say, the level where you're flying over a neighborhood in the AC-130 was quite jarring in its sense of realism. It's not gory - but the greyscale and video effects made it far too close to my liking in terms of blurring the lines of playing a game and what visibly appeared to be something approaching real in a way I'd not yet experienced in video games yet. It's not gory, but it sure is violent.
 
Exactly, I think violent media can influence people on their path to violence. Maybe being a small push, or maybe influencing choice of targets etc. But not cause them to commit violence. Same with political rhetoric.

So I just don't see much utility in focusing so much energy on violent media, political rhetoric etc. when we already have a crisis of having so little funding for criminal justice research and little emphasis on getting at the root causes of why we have so much violence relative to other first world countries.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']why we have so much violence relative to other first world countries.[/QUOTE]

whats your take?
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']whats your take?[/QUOTE]

Too hard to say, and it's not my area as I research policing mainly and don't know that much about macro-level (i.e. society wide) theories of crime.

But somethings that definitely matter is being such a heterogeneous country, the large gap between the rich and poor, the level of poverty and lesser social saftey nets than some other countries to help offset the impact of things like broken families and other social ills related to poverty etc, the materialism and emphasis on only monetary success really being valued as having a "good life", the easy access of firearms etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
damn shame he wasn't wearing a trench coat and listening to Marilyn Manson, it'd be so much easier to determine the media's role in all of this!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Pains me to do it, but regardless of the source, it's spot on. Especially calling out the likes of radicals like krugman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-3EoGCuDc[/QUOTE]



Bill O'Reilly is such a hypocrite. He's upset that the tragedy is being politicized, but spends the entire 8 minutes attacking "lefty loons." And, he conveniently forgets to mention any of the violent rhetoric coming from Fox News commentators.

I do agree with O'Reilly on that NYT editorial he mentioned ("Demonizing immigrants, welfare recipients..."). But, that's just one editorial, and it's not what most people are talking about right now. Most people are talking about the violent, gun-related rhetoric that mostly comes from the right. I wish he would have addressed that more thoroughly.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly, I think violent media can influence people on their path to violence. Maybe being a small push, or maybe influencing choice of targets etc. But not cause them to commit violence. Same with political rhetoric.

So I just don't see much utility in focusing so much energy on violent media, political rhetoric etc. when we already have a crisis of having so little funding for criminal justice research and little emphasis on getting at the root causes of why we have so much violence relative to other first world countries.[/QUOTE]

I still disagree.

With violent videogames/movies/etc, everybody knows that they are manufactured. As in, somebody didn't actually die to make that scene and that it is all special effects (or in the case of videogames, completely fake). You could argue that it desensitizes people to violence but even the best videogame or special effects are far away from the real deal.

With political rhetoric and news pundits, it is not an act to most people. It is just the news. Something that some people trust completely. It's completely possible for them to get locked in an echo chamber where that is the only thing they hear. They can watch Glenn Beck on TV, listen to his radio show, read his books, talk on message boards about what he talks about with other followers. It can change a person. And while most people just stay frozen in fear and continue to buy all the merchandise, there is only so much "the liberals are destroying this country" and revolutionary type rhetoric an unstable person can take before they try to take action.

Now that most likely wasn't the case in this situation but the fact we are at a point where a person running for Senator can talk about "second amendment remedies ;)" and not get destroyed in the media by everybody...it is a toxic environment.

[quote name='that Salon article']Everyone uses battle-related language in politics, of course. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," candidate Barack Obama said in 2008. Rahm Emanuel's comically exaggerated speech is the stuff of (probably embellished) legend. It's perfectly legitimate, if also often counterproductive and stupid, to pretend politics is blood sport.

I'd also say that while you can argue the wisdom of either, there's a difference between using the imagery of politics as street fight and employing revolutionary rhetoric. And when you combine standard-issue violent political language with the idea -- stated and reiterated by nearly every prominent right-wing politician and media figure since Obama took office -- that the opponent is not simply wrong, but has illegitimately seized power, and is illegally exercising that power, the inevitable question raised is, "What do we do to stop them?" The correct answer is supposed to be "vote Republican and keep watching Fox," of course, but a good midterm for the GOP hasn't dethroned the socialist usurper-in-chief.

It's not strictly that language tinged with violent imagery is dangerous, or that heated denunciations of the motivations of your political opponents are out of line, or even that America's pervasive gun fetishization is to blame (though our gun culture is insane and bizarre to every single other developed nation in the world) for violent crimes. But when elites don't just condone but participate in the combination of that violent imagery with the idea that the government represents an existential threat -- that representatives of the government are domestic enemies, that your liberty and even your physical safety are in danger -- the idea of political violence is normalized. Terrorizing Congress members at town halls and "we surround you" and head-stomping and death threats and all the other bad craziness just becomes "the way we do politics in America."

The crazies are listening to the same media that the rest of us are. Charles Alan Wilson, the man arrested last year for threatening the life of Sen. Patty Murray, used the same language as Glenn Beck in his insane voice mails to Murray's office and borrowed Sarah Palin's death panels meme. (He also had a concealed weapons permit and carried a loaded .38 special.) When everyone's hoisting guns and shouting "tyranny" and playing at being a revolutionary, there will be a couple of people who don't see the wink.[/QUOTE]

And I'm glad somebody brought up Rwanda. I've read many books about that situation and Radio Rwanda (plus other media) was one of the main things that set off that genocide.

- edit Also, I would say the fact this guy fell through the cracks after getting kicked out of college by crazy ranting during class (which didn't set off a red flag during a background check for his gun or force him to get mental help) is more important than the underfunding of criminal justice research
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top