Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dreadgeek]

[quote=afixer;263740]ftr...the political climate has been and always will be ripe for such actions.
link
some of our forefathers came to this land to escape political tyrannies elsewhere.
that didn't work out so well for the native folks here.

I love my country but our government is flawed in that as a nation we take action and even have laws that would allow for the taking of any human life.
when I say this I mean we send our soldiers abroad to kill for our country and we have capital punishment on a federal level.
so how are we as a nation any different?
it's never okay to take someone's life.


.

I'm curious about something. Do not other nations also send their soldiers to kill others? Can you name a nation that was a power in, say, 1900 that didn't send its armies forth at least once last century? Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Japan all sent their armies forth for the purpose of conquest or to maintain their empire or to comply with a treaty obligation. Yet, the only nation on that list with a death rate from violence even *remotely* approaching the United States is Iraq and there is a real, honest-to-goodness low-intensity war being fought there.

In answer to your question of "how are we as a nation different" it is this...the United States has a population of around 300 million and there are approximately 270 *million* guns in private hands--that isn't counting the weapons in the hands of the police or the military. Now, I'm not saying we should abandon the Second Amendment. I *am* saying that before we try to portray the United States as a nation that is uniquely iniquitous in human history, we might want to consider other factors.

In a nation awash in firearms we might want to keep our political rhetoric polite. A nation not awash in guns can afford (but probably shouldn't encourage) to have different parts of the body politic portrayed as enemies of goodness, family and puppies.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

In answer to your question of "how are we as a nation different" it is this...the United States has a population of around 300 million and there are approximately 270 *million* guns in private hands--that isn't counting the weapons in the hands of the police or the military. Now, I'm not saying we should abandon the Second Amendment. I *am* saying that before we try to portray the United States as a nation that is uniquely iniquitous in human history, we might want to consider other factors.

In a nation awash in firearms we might want to keep our political rhetoric polite. A nation not awash in guns can afford (but probably shouldn't encourage) to have different parts of the body politic portrayed as enemies of goodness, family and puppies.

Cheers
Aj

See. I don't think it's the number of guns that a nation has (Canada's estimates range from 7-11 million firearms for about 2-3 million gun owners). The 270 Million guns isn't per person. The last estimate was about 25% of the population in the US had guns. Canada is half that and I've rarely (very rarely with exception to Mark Levine in the 1990s and the FLQ in the 70s) heard of the kind of violence that exists here in the US. Heck, look at Switzerland with a pop of about 7 million and where there is an est 1.2-3 million guns in the household (granted a lot are because the expectation the all citizens make up the national militia). But I think it highlights my next point.

I think it's the culture around guns and the culture of the US itself that leads it to where it goes. As a Canadian living in the US, I'm shocked often by the attitude towards guns (I shouldn't be since I grew up seeing American news regularly as a kid). The thing that strikes me is the overreaching desire or belief that if someone doesn't agree then we'll make them agree at the end of a barrel. To me, that is a foreign concept but seems readily possible here. K often tells me to be careful when going out -- in daylight! -- for fear that something might happen to me. I've never had that kind of fear when living at home, even in downtown Toronto and a street over from a known crack street (yes, it was known not as a crack house but a whole street).

It is why I contend that the rhetoric has a lot to do with the way things go in this country. I do not recall ever seeing this kind of rhetoric in Canada and even when a party I didn't like got elected I knew it wasn't the end of the nation. I knew the party I would have elected would keep them on their toes and challenge them on their policies. That isn't something I see here.

The nation is built on confrontation and continues that today.

[Chancie]

It's incredibly naive to assume that the world around us does not impact us, affect our behavior, infiltrate our thoughts, change us in some way.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Chancie

It's incredibly naive to assume that the world around us does not impact us, affect our behavior, infiltrate our thoughts, change us in some way.

The truly maddening thing about this is how astoundingly inconsistent it is.

If the subject is rap music, violence in movies or positive portrayals of homosexuality then, according to one prominent political philosophy, Americans are largely blank slates who if they *hear* a song about the glories of violence will go out and commit violence. On the other hand, if someone uses political rhetoric of revolution and overthrow and 'taking out' one's political opponents that language has NO effect in the real world what-so-ever provided that the speaker/writer is from the right. Yet the media will pretend and cover this issue (until the next Brittney Spears explosion of stupidity) as if there were equivalency.

Cheers
Aj

[MsDemeanor]

Switzerland has a high number of gun owners because they practice universal conscription. Every male between the age of 20 and 30-34 (depending on rank) is required to keep a service weapon in his home as part of his military obligation. Once they pass conscription age, they have the option of keeping their weapon.

So, let's set Switzerland aside. The Small Arms Survey of 2007 shows 90 gun per 100 Americans. The next countries on the list are Yemen with 61 per 100, Iraq at 39 per 100, and Serbia at 37.5 per 100. France, Finland, Greece, Canada, Sweden, Austria, and Germany all have 30-32 per 100.

[MsDemeanor]

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

MsD:

Never let it be said that she doesn’t know how to play the media the way that Irving Berlin could play the violin. She is, without a doubt, the best I've ever seen.

Cheers
Aj

[Ryobi]

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you for more examples of "readily twisting words and meanings". And please be careful, one of those whack jobs are going to contact you to be their speech writer. lol.

[Medusa]

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all.
<snip>

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

Linus:

Yes, her map did have a target on Giffords' district. At the time, I wondered what would be her reaction if anyone on that list was actually shot at. Now we know (FWIW, her reaction is about what I expected it to be). It is interesting that on her FB page (now scrubbed) she boasted about the map and how 18 of 20 the Democrats targeted (her words) were defeated. One of the two who weren't is now in an Arizona hospital.

She will continue to say "I never said go shoot someone" and she will continue to be right. She never said those words. It doesn't change the fact that she has said (not implied but said) that the American government in its current incarnation is tyrannical and she has applauded (and mindlessly aped) the Jefferson quote that the 'tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of tyrants'. Now, is she responsible? No. But she should tone down her rhetoric.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) ran through a litany of violent rhetoric used by prominent American conservatives in just the last year:

Quoting Sharron Angle: "People are looking towards the second amendment remedies and saying my goodness, what can we do to turn our country around."

Angle again: "The first thing we need to do is take out blank." The exact quote: "The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Quoting Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): "I want people in blank armed and dangerous on this issue [of the energy tax] because we need to fight back."

Quoting Glenn Beck: "I want to kill blank with a shovel." The exact quote: "I want to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel."

Beck again: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray blank will burst into flames." The exact quote: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames."

Quoting Texas GOP candidate Stephen Broden: ''Our nation was founded on violence. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' ' The exact quote: ''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' '

Quoting Sarah Palin: "Don't retreat, reload."

Now, if I or one of you reading this posts any of these statements on our blog it may be in bad taste, it may be hyperbolic but it isn't dangerous. I'm not a national figure and chances are, you aren't either. If, on the other hand, you are a figure of national prominence and YOU say something like this that is a completely different matter altogether. Imagine, if you will, Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer saying "if ballots don't work, bullets will". Congress could be out of session, everyone gone back home for some recess or another, and the Republican leadership and every single Washington pundit to the right of Rachel Maddow would be calling for Congress to rush back to D.C., reconvene *immediately* and have the offenders tried for treason.

If you are in or aspire to be in high political office then you should be held to a higher standard.

Full article and video here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg



Cheers
Aj

[Kobi]

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

[Chancie]

Kobi, you are mistaken. The elected official who was likely the target of the shootings was a progressive in a conservative state. She represents a diametrically different political stance than does the governor of that state.

And I am sure the father of the little girl who was murdered doesn't think her life was inconsequential.

[Linus]

You've gotten to pause and wonder when stuff like this happen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_808116.html

...
But the attacks also took on a racial hue. One critic referred to him derogatorily as "McCain's boy," Miller said. Other language was even less ambiguous. At an event in Lake Havasu City, Ariz., Miller said someone called out, "There's Anthony, get a rope."
Yet Miller balks at crying racism.


"To say that anyone has been racially motivated, I can't really draw a conclusion," he said. "But a lot of people told me 'You're not a conservative, you're a RINO.' In my mind, that's just as bad as being called a n-----, honestly. When you call someone a n-----, it's saying they're less than, and RINO is the same thing."

Me personally. I smell racism here but that's just my weird Canuckian view.


Oh.. and what does "RINO" mean? The only "RINO" I heard of was the Rhino Party of Canada (who favoured parties -- like "Party on, dude!" parties -- and weed as their platform)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

No, I have to say that interpretation hadn't occurred to me. However, after reading your post I gamed it out in my head on my drive home from work. It doesn't work for me for a number of reasons:

1) The perpetrator is all wrong. Circumstances have handed any pol wanting to drum up fear in the body politic the *perfect* foil--namely Muslims.

2) The actual deed is wrong. Yes, six people died but there could have been a much higher body count.

3) Giffords survived. If this were a conspiracy she would have died because from a propaganda perspective she is worth far more dead than alive.

What possible benefit would come out of this for a politician or 'the government'? None. If someone is going to take such a HUGE risk as a false-flag operation, there has to be a payoff. There's no payoff to this. Discussion of gun control ( which goes nowhere) and distraction? Not nearly enough.

If the shooter had been a suicide bomber and if said suicide bomber had conveniently been in Pakistan or along the AfPak border area and immediately following there were calls to invade Pakistan then I could see an argument for a false-flag operation. But given the above, I just don't see it. The risks of being caught so outweigh any potential benefits that there's no way someone would green light the kind of operation you are alluding to.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

I actually wanted to add this--and I know this sounds cynical but here goes anyway.

There is no level of gun-violence mayhem that I would put past the American public. Every year, every YEAR, enough people are shot and killed in this country to make up the body count of a decent-sized guerilla war or partisan insurgency. In fact, I would go so far as to say that suicide-bombings not-with-standing, there are hardly any excesses of the most vicious, brutal, hard-fought civil war that cannot be easily and enthusiastically duplicated by an ordinary American walking into a building with his Constitutionally protected firearm.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

See. I don't think it's the number of guns that a nation has (Canada's estimates range from 7-11 million firearms for about 2-3 million gun owners). The 270 Million guns isn't per person. The last estimate was about 25% of the population in the US had guns. Canada is half that and I've rarely (very rarely with exception to Mark Levine in the 1990s and the FLQ in the 70s) heard of the kind of violence that exists here in the US. Heck, look at Switzerland with a pop of about 7 million and where there is an est 1.2-3 million guns in the household (granted a lot are because the expectation the all citizens make up the national militia). But I think it highlights my next point.

And you make an excellent point (thank you for reminding me that Switzerland has a high percentage of gun owners as well). The point I was driving at--not very well--was that I think that the reason(s) for the gun violence in America has much less to do with those parts of our national behavior we may not like (having a standing army, sending that army to fight wars in various and sundry places) and much more to do with cultural issues within the US.

I think it's the culture around guns and the culture of the US itself that leads it to where it goes. As a Canadian living in the US, I'm shocked often by the attitude towards guns (I shouldn't be since I grew up seeing American news regularly as a kid). The thing that strikes me is the overreaching desire or belief that if someone doesn't agree then we'll make them agree at the end of a barrel.

Couldn't agree with you more! We have a culture that glorifies the myth of the lone wolf hero who, against all odds and armed only with his trusty hand cannon, defeats the 'bad guys'. There is also a double-standard at work here that I've already touched on but I'll delve into a little bit more.

Imagine, if you will, that there was a rap group that had songs about Second Amendment remedies being the next natural step after losing an election. Imagine that someone then went out and shot up a supermarket. Is there anyone who doubts that rap music wouldn't be blamed? If the shooter had been a Muslim, is there anyone who doubts that Islam would be blamed? The ONLY reason that Mr. Loughner's alleged actions are his and his alone, is that he is white. His actions will ONLY be considered as symptomatic of a collective outlook is if it turns out that he is a product of the Left (which, while possible, I doubt). Consider that Mr. Obama is considered to be 'palling around with terrorists' because he served on the board of directors of an organization with a man who was a member of the Weather Underground when Mr. Obama was not yet in junior high school! Yet, Mr. Obama is considered to be *directly* responsible for the actions of the Weather Underground. He is also considered responsible for the words of his former pastor, Mr. Wright.

In this nation the rules are this:

If you are a liberal and you say "regime change begins at home" (which may be facile but is, more or less, innocuous) then you are advocating the violent overthrow of the United States.

If you are a conservative and you say "Democrats are a bunch of Marxist, fascist, Islamist terrorists who are more Nazi than the Nazi's were. Wouldn't the world have been saved a lot of trouble if, in 1937, someone had taken out the Nazis before the Anchluss, before Munich, before Poland? We should take out the Democrats before they can do to America what the Nazi's did to German" then no matter WHAT happens afterwards, your words were 'misunderstood' or the 'liberal media' are trying to smear you.

Look, if we're going to hold people to a standard of appropriate political behavior then we should use the same standard instead of a double-standard favorable to one party while making another party walk a *very* short and narrow path. Right now, liberals have no room to maneuver while conservatives, from my perspective, can walk right up to the line where the *next* step has the Secret Service showing up at your down without any consequences.

It is why I contend that the rhetoric has a lot to do with the way things go in this country. I do not recall ever seeing this kind of rhetoric in Canada and even when a party I didn't like got elected I knew it wasn't the end of the nation. I knew the party I would have elected would keep them on their toes and challenge them on their policies. That isn't something I see here.

The nation is built on confrontation and continues that today.

Part of the problem that I, as a liberal, have is that I try to hew pretty close to the facts. I don't think that my opinions are the same thing as the facts which, I hope, are the basis of my opinions. How does one effectively fight the good fight if, for instance, the other side conflates opinion (e.g. the HCR bill has language that after 70, a 'death panel' determines whether you can live another year) and fact (the HCR bill has end-of-life counseling coverage so that people can get help creating a durable power of attorney)?

Cheers
Aj