Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Sarah Palin should stop talking about 'death panels' that will order your grandmother to be put to death. Glenn Beck should stop making comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Rush Limbaugh should stop saying that liberals want the terrorists to win or are on the side of Al Qaeda. The media, perhaps, should start doing their jobs with a little more gusto and mature behavior.

The Republican leadership should quit using incendiary language. Case in point: "HR 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" It's like five year olds taunting others on a playground. These people are supposed to be leaders.

[Corkey]

This pretty much sums it up for me, and I agree with him on all his points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/op...ef=todayspaper

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Corkey

This pretty much sums it up for me, and I agree with him on all his points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/op...ef=todayspaper

Speaks volumes:

"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

Speaks volumes:

"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

Precisely. It is one thing entirely to say, for instance, that congressional Republicans and the national conservative movement, generally, have taken Machiavellian mendacity to new and artistic depths. It is quite another thing to say that liberals want to destroy America and that their every intent is to destroy America. If you say that Democrats want to tax and spend the money of hard-working (read white) Americans and give it to the undeserving (read not-white) then okay. It's not accurate, but that seems in bounds. If one is wont to say that Republicans want to engorge the coffers of the super-rich on the backs of the poor, alright. It may be simplistic, it may be inaccurate, but still within bounds.

Do I think that when Sarah Palin's star falls American political discourse will be the better for it? Yes. Do I think that when Glenn Beck's antics bring him sinking ratings American political culture will have improved incrementally? Yes. Do I think that Keith Olberman should, perhaps, go through the CBS archives and see how different his hero Edward R. Murrow comported himself while still speaking truth to power? Yes.

However, that's not wishing for there to be no conservatives or for Keith Olberman to go the way of the dodo. Whenever I am speaking with a conservative who looks at Palin and sees someone speaking to and for them, I ask how they would go about dealing with liberals and how they think America would be better off if there were no liberals. Most times, that brings them up short because I don't think a lot of conservatives realize just *how* eliminationist the rhetoric has become.

Cheers
Aj

[Novelafemme]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...23a32eaf7.html

[Nightshade]

While I think it's important to realize that extremist have been around forever, their methods of disseminating propaganda has changed dramatically.

Instead of radical newspapers, subversive flyers, whispered recruiting and basement meetings, these people have 24 hour podiums on multiple tv and radio stations.

That sort of bombardment is HIGHLY effective and I believe it has contributed to the volatile tone of politics today, and helps these psychos hone their hatred and justify their actions.

[Novelafemme]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9gwhJ6YJQ"]YouTube - Mindless Menace of Violence[/nomedia]

RFK's Mindless Menace of Violence Speech. Please listen to these powerful words.

[RockOn]

First off, I would like to thank Medusa for this topic.

Here is a link to a video from some time back, entitled "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs." In this video, Giffords specifically says "there are consequences ... "

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4"]YouTube - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs[/nomedia]


Here is an additional link. It points to Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u

I find these videos of Loughner's extremely disturbing. I have concluded Loughner's just another unhappy, angry punk with mental issues and no regard for others and no conscience. He is angry and wants to do something - do something big. He decided to use Giffords as his target as a means of releasing his anger. Appears to me he possesses very complicated ideas regarding his self-assigned privileged special powers and importance.

This incident is really bothering me. I could write volumes of chapters on personal speculations about how "this may have caused that" ... etc. but I won't. Instead, here are my comments. Nuts have always existed. There is no way every one of them can be monitored and removed.

Prayers to the Good Spirit for the deceased and injured ... as well as all their loved ones and friends. I find it heartbreaking.

I'll never understand how anyone can be so mean.

Sidenote: Please overlook this post if someone has already posted these links. Most times, I do not read entire threads because it is entirely too time consuming. I won't give that much to online so I do miss a lot of key points. I even break the rules unknowingly of a particular topic because of this. Oh well ...

[Hack]

I don't think Sarah Palin's website or her rhetoric are specifically what drove this individual to do what he did. But things like that certainly don't help. Neither does Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

I've worked in politics for more than 20 years for legislators and a governor. In the last few years, especially, I've grown a pretty thick skin. I am a press spokesperson for a department of state government here in Michigan, which has been Ground Zero for the economic meltdown in the manufacturing sector. We have a lot of pissed off people here, simply put. I don't think a week goes by where I don't get a phone call that is threatening or kinda creepy. In fact, right now, I have a message stored in my voicemail awaiting investigation because some would perceive it as a death threat. I have a radio show host in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who routinely mentions by name law enforcement officers and other high-ranking officials who work in my department and says things like they should be "shot on sight" or "strung up in the tallest tree." I have one of my staff listen to a recording of his show each week and catalog the threats just in case something happens. We've tried to file a complaint with him, but he's apparently covered under "freedom of speech." Welcome to public service in the 21st Century.

You know, I hate to sound cynical, but we all know what will happen here. There will be a few weeks of discussion about how we have to have more civil discourse in politics, but by summertime, I predict, it will be back to business as usual. And certainly, as we approach the election season in 2012, with a Republican Party relishing the chance to knock Obama out of office, it will be ratcheted up even further.

We're all taught to speak up when we think something is wrong. Some of us do, and some folks don't. But then I think some people take the action too far. I also think we have lost the value of statesmanship in politics. It used to be that politicians would strive to be statesmen or stateswomen, but those folks sadly tend to be few and far between these days.

Jake

[dreadgeek]

I want to make one other comment about the media reaction.

Imagine, if you will, the following details being different and ONLY these following details:

Case 1: "The alleged shooter, Faisal Al-Jawari, who went to a mosque in southwest Tucson..."

Case 2: The alleged shooter, Kwame Holmes, who attended the St. Andrews AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church....

Case 3: The alleged shooter, Javier Domingo, who was born in Guatemala...

In case 1, is there ANYONE reading this who doubts that we wouldn't be talking about terrorists and how whether or not we should trust Muslims?

In case 2, is there anyone who thinks we wouldn't be hearing someone like Tucker Carlson claiming that they wish someone had 'taken the shooter out' or that the hoped 'something happened' to him in jail or en route to trial next to a picture of the little girl who was killed?

In case 3, is there anyone who thinks we wouldn't be hearing about the dangers of immigrants and calls to close the border?

Yet, because of who this guy is he won't be called crazy nor will he be considered representative of some group. Instead, he's a lone wolf, a crazy man, 'one bad apple'.

Go back and look at the difference between the Fort Hood shooter (who happened to be brown skinned and with a non-European name) and this guy. Or look at the difference between the coverage of John Lee Malvo and this guy.

Not to derail the thread, but I think that the contrast is striking and there for all to see.

Cheers
Aj