After this, it’s nothing but football for the next few hours.
But this is why ED and others are wrong premature to be so confident that Loughner did not have ties to any extremist political groups. Here are two stories about law enforcement probing possible ties between Loughner and an anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant hate group.
As I said, I don’t claim to have any knowledge of what motivated the shooting. That’s why I’m not telling everyone that I’m sure the shooter acted alone without clear political motivation and that all you vituperative partisans should STFU and accept my baseless “centrist” spin on things.
WereBear
I’m still trying to figure out how a former VP candidate for the Republican party can advocate shooting their political opponents, but when someone does, I’m the hysterical doodyhead to connect these two facts.
Dennis SGMM
You’re correct that we don’t know much about Loughner. What I do know is that if the politician who was wounded was a Republican there would be at least five Congressional investigations started on Monday and plenty of calls for the shooter to be waterboarded until he revealed his ties to the Obama administration and George Soros.
Judas Escargot
Imagine if Greg Mankiw had actually been curb-stomped to death yesterday by some crazy person of complex/ambiguous political leanings.
Would the conservatives and glibertarians among us be so eagerly rushing to Jon Chait’s defense? “Benefit of the doubt” until you “have all the facts”, my ass.
BR
FTA:
Archangel
“STFU” to BJ commenters = herding cats.
Cat Lady
@WereBear:
Because shut up that’s why. Starbursts! Also too.
BGinCHI
In America, the “center” is what enables the right. It’s inhabited by people who don’t think political power is problematic because they either hold it or benefit from it.
Journalists are a prime example: sitting in the center protecting their jobs and their privileged position in our society (expensive cars and habits, private schools, etc.). I’m not against any of these things per se, but enabling the status quo, such as pretending that Citizens United didn’t ensconce corporate power in this country, is a political act.
The Dangerman
It’s not an either/or set of conditions:
1) Find out more about the shooter, his motivations, his backing, his mental health, etc.;
and
2) Tone done the violent rhetoric AND condemn those that have used it (Palin, Angle) and will use it (TBD)
The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
Edit: And I mean unequivocally condemn, up to and including a House Resolution clearly condemning such actions (and not a “both sides do it” resolution).
beltane
And more incriminating denials from the Palin camp:
Is it worth discussing the possibility that mentally disturbed people tend to be drawn to extremist groups? I’m sure some of the shooters in Mumbai were also disturbed in some way. If only happy, well-adjusted people are capable of committing political violence, then we can safely say that there hasn’t been a lot of political violence in human history. I feel so much safer now.
mistermix
This isn’t really in response to what DougJ posted, but what’s happening is that the most mealy-mouthed and unanalytic are conflating two claims:
1. The shooter was influenced by Palin’s imagery or part of a conspiracy motivated by it. (We don’t know the answer to that.)
2. Palin’s imagery was unnecessary, inappropriate and risky, could well have led to something like the events yesterday, should be condemned very strongly today, she should pay a big political price for advancing it, and yesterday’s events are a further reminder why, no matter what motivated this wacko. (We can say that now.)
Howie Kurtz, for example, thinks that saying (2) means that you’re saying (1). It doesn’t.
Dave C
Can we get a thread about what an asshole Jon Kyl is?
Cat Lady
@Judas Escargot:
This is the part of the story where Jim Treacher can come and explain this “jumping to conclusion” FAIL to us.
scav
@WereBear: do the words purdy white xian girl hover in a thought bubble nearby by any chance? Or am I hypothesizing before the media-established consensus again. Or just hallucinating.
Jay C
Doug, to be fair I don’t think EDK or the other front-pagers were actually being “confident that Loughner did not have ties to any extremist political groups” – but rather wanting not to jump to conclusions about any political/ideological “motivation” this whackaloon might have had. Though given the little bit of info we have had so far about Mr. Loughner, I think it’s a reasonable guess that the boat of his sanity keeled over through listing to starboard, rather than port…..
Punchy
followed by…..
Does not compute. Extremely weak sauce, law firm.
BGinCHI
@mistermix: Absolutely. See my comment above and just plug in Howie Kurtz. Shills for the safe middle where we are all supposed to go along and get along.
And fuck Jon fucking Kyl too. I hope the Pima Co sheriff runs for his seat.
Asshole.
Amanda in the South Bay
This is my first post anywhere about this story, and I agree we’ll know more in the next couple of days about the shooter’s actual motives.
The thing is, I don’t see how anyone can honestly think there is some sort of moral equivalence between right and left in this country with regards to violent rhetoric. It’s intellectually bankrupt to claim so.
Jay C
@Dave C:
Dave, there’s not enough bandwidth in the observable universe to properly deal with that subject!
Amanda in the South Bay
For all I know the shooter could’ve believed Romulans were telling him Giffords was an undercover Klingon agent, and it doesn’t change the fact that the right has a very serious problem with advocating violence.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Jay C: Well EDK did say
Stillwater
There are levels to this. One is a direct connection to right (or left) wing groups that significantly influenced Loughner’s choices. Another is the cultural environment Loughner exists in, one in which second amendment options are normalized. The jury’s still out on the first one. But not the second. EDK wants to say that conservative rhetoric had no influence on Loughner’s actions, but that’s like saying that the spectators at a suicide who shout ‘Jump!’ and ‘you really can fly!’ play no role in that outcome either.
Plus, there’s this: even if Loughner were shown conclusively to be Teabagger, EDK and conservatives would still claim that there is no political angle to the murders, since a real conservative would never have done these things.
4tehlulz
@Dave C: Jon Kyle exists to make John McCain look good.
It’s a thankless job, but it may be the only thing he’s good at.
scav
In other words
Dave C
@Jay C:
Heh, true. I guess I will just join BGinCHI in saying, “Fuck Jon Fucking Kyl.”
J sub D
I’m still blaming abolitionist rhetoric for the atrocities John Brown committed. The anti-slavery forces should have toned it down.
Who’s with me?
Josh James
Thank you, Doug … I don’t get E.D, he posts stuff he should, by all rights if he reads this blog regular, know is going to get torn apart (because, in my opinion, there are loose threads in his arguments everywhere) and when it does, the commenters get hollered at by John for being mean …
My three year old went on a school trip (his daycare school) to a petting zoo last fall … there was like thirty kids, and parents went with them.
In one section, they had a round fence filled with chickens, and they let the kids go inside the fence with the chickens (about forty or so) so they could be close to the animals.
The catch was, they weren’t supposed to chase the chickens. The staff kept saying, “don’t chase the chickens!”
To me, telling a group of toddlers not to chase a bunch of chickens is the height of ridiculousness … if you don’t want the chickens chased, don’t put toddlers in there with them.
I kind of feel that way about E.D. when he gets flamed … He often posts hard to defend opinions, and John is taken aback when he’s attacked …
Dude, keep him out of the cage, then. You know?
Just my opinion, of course … I’m not trying to be mean.
BR
@Stillwater:
Remember, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Punchy: Sure it does. It doesn’t make any sense to say that you think he probably doesn’t have any ties to extreme organizations in the same post where you are telling others that we just don’t know the facts. EDK scolded us for speculating, then went on to suggest things that can only be speculation.
Joey Maloney
@mistermix: This needs to be engraved on a lot of foreheads. Backwards, so people can read it when they look in the mirror.
jk
@mistermix:
Howie Kurtz is the clown prince of toolishness in the field of media criticism. Prolonged exposure to Kurtz may cause dizziness, nausea, and headaches. Do your head and stomach a favor and stop reading or watching this smarmy buffoon. His latest column in the Daily Beast was the last straw for me.
FoxinSocks
And Lamar Alexander too. He was busy today trying to claim that the shooter was a liberal, based on the books he read.
Most people I know are taking a wait-and-see attitude and the Republicans are running scared, casting blame.
And no, it’s not casting blame to say that whether or not Loughner was influenced by Sarah Palin’s rhetoric (we have no idea yet), that targeting political opponents with cross-hairs is a bad idea.
BGinCHI
@Josh James: Are you calling E.D. a chicken?
Wait, are you calling the BJ jackals “three-year-olds”??
Well played, sir.
MK
From James Fallows:
Enough said for me.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
Not to mention that essing the eff u denies something fundamental about human nature. I really don’t understand the call to stoically suck pebbles until the exhaustive 20 page New Yorker essay comes out six months hence.
To speculate is simply human. If someone is fool enough to take something they read in a comment box as gospel, then their tendency to speculate is the least of their problems.
Cat Lady
@MK:
And now Howie Kurtz has a sad.
adolphus
@mistermix:
This, this a thousands times this.
Just because I don’t think she is directly responsible, doesn’t mean I don’t think violent gun-blasting rhetoric is abhorrent and needs to be held to account.
bemused
@Dave C:
When I listened to Sheriff Dupnik yesterday talk about the rhetoric, I immediately thought of what law enforcement must be going through these days especially in areas where the extremist rhetoric is off the charts. Underfunded, understaffed police depts have their hands full as it is without hatemongers actively encouraging more raging crazies to act out.
WereBear
For the longest time, the right wing has defended themselves when anyone actually does what they advocate because only a deranged person would actually do what the right wing, in fact, urges them to do.
It’s okay for them to say these things because only a deranged person would go out and do them.
So when a deranged person does actually do these things, it is not the fault of the right wing because only deranged people would actually do what they continually tell them to do.
And when a deranged person who actually does these things has, in fact, ties to violent right wing organizations, it has nothing, nothing! to do with the right wing.
I guess I’m just a pointy headed intellectual. I don’t get it.
adolphus
Also, I just read that Obama has called for flags at the White House are to be flown at half-mast. With all do respect, the flags at the White House will be at half-staff. Masts are on ships. If he were a real Merikun he’d know this. Dirty commie, fascist, anti-colonial.
jk
“We don’t know anything yet”
Doug, this should be the new slogan for CNN and every CNN anchor should use it as their daily sign-off. It fits perfectly with their devout adherence to the he said / she said false equivalency school of journalism.
BGinCHI
Snapshot definition of the media at the end of the first decade of the 21st century:
Right Wing: Fear! Division! Violence! Do as we say or suffer the consequences!
Left Wing: Education! Environmental Responsibility! Our own President betrays us! Public Transportation and Infrastructure Investment! Be Kind To Animals!
Establishment Center: Both sides use exclamation points. The difference is merely semantics. Now, go out and buy stuff and don’t worry.
Xenos
@J sub D: Well, Harriet Tubman did try to get Brown to step back from a program of violence, but Brown seemed determined to get some retribution for his murdered sons. So maybe the root cause was the campaign of slave-holder violence in Kansas, flipping your analogy around completely.
But then, your analogy does not deal much with actual facts, and does not make much sense in any case.
Winston Smith
What’s annoying me about the analysis of Jarad’s intention is the rather simplistic interpretations of his ravings.
When he talks about “new currency” and “new religion” he doesn’t mean these in quite the literal way that they are being taken. It’s pretty clear that he thinks that when you affect change on something it becomes something new and different — a sentiment that isn’t entirely wrong.
Of course, he wraps this up in a repeated tautological pattern:
If X then Y.
X.
Thus Y.
This is proof by assertion, a favorite of crazy people and (non-clinically-crazy wingnuts).
Cacti
@4tehlulz:
And when queried about it in the past, neither of them could think of a specific example of why Arizona was better off for having them in the Senate.
John Cole
@mistermix: I’m also a big fan of the current notion that what a commenter at DKOS says and what the former VP candidate of a major political party says hold the same weight.
Dave
This is how I see it. Loughner is bat-shit crazy. But his YouTube video stream has three distinct “right-wing” points.
1. Not using fiat currency, but having gold and silver back our money.
2. Reading the Constitution to understand our “current un-Constitutional laws”
3. Calling college tuition payments un-Constitutional because of the 10th amendment.
Gold standard. Un-constitutional laws. 10th Amendment. All things constantly hammered home by right-wing groups, people and politicians. Often married to violent rhetoric.
Was Loughner a Tea Party member? Who knows…and frankly its irrelevant. What is relevant is that right-wing violent speech creates an atmosphere that allows a damaged mind like Loughner’s to decide it’s right and proper to shoot a Congresswoman in the head.
Palin, Beck and the rest didn’t pull the trigger. They didn’t tell Loughner to do this. But they sure as hell spewed enough garbage into the American political bloodstream to make him think to do this. And in that, it is perfectly proper and right to call out Palin and the rest and hang it on them. Words matter.
And fuck anyone who tries to say “everyone does this”. Show me all the Democratic politicians who talk about taking people out and “2nd Amendment solutions”. This is NOT a political problem. It is a RIGHT-WING political problem and it has to stop.
Jane2
@Punchy: Exactly. “We don’t know anything yet, but let me tell you why you’re wrong about your speculations, and I’m right about mine.”
Cacti
@adolphus:
And with all do respect, it’s actually all “due” respect.
Bob Loblaw
@WereBear:
Because certain people have decided the sole desired response to this is to run one single politician they don’t like out on a rail, and that is dumb. There’s a big shiny (probably irrelevant) doodad to pin the blame on Sarah Palin with that map, and you can run wild with that if you want, or you can look at the bigger picture.
The fact is that the guy who shot up the crowd was from that congressional district. I’m betting he knew who the congresswoman was, with or without the map, with or without anybody ever even knowing who Palin was. He didn’t have to hunt Giffords down, he had to drive to his own local grocery store.
And the media voices and political guidance he heard aren’t just going to be the big names on Fox that people out here in the broader world know about. They’re going to be blogs and local radio stations and citizens with names you’ve never heard of and never will. This was done in a state that swept itself up in a tide of extreme intolerance and bigotry, by a person seemingly obsessed by bimetallism, abortion, and government mind control.
This goes deeper than Sarah Palin. Hell, this goes deeper than the entire Republican Party.
People have been willing to kill in this country for abortion restrictions, and anti-immigration nativism, and economic apocalypse doomerism, and anti-Semitism, and on and on and on for a very long time. This didn’t begin with Palin and Beck and FreedomWorks. It doesn’t end with them.
BGinCHI
@John Cole: Plus, “she’s dead to me” doesn’t imply that it is so because you killed her or wanted her killed.
It means “I’m not going to pay any attention to her anymore.”
Why can’t the media interpret anything? Man, they are shitty readers.
D-. Please see me in office hours.
E.D. Kain
Lots of straw men here Doug.
adolphus
@Cacti:
D’oh. Nothing ruins a good sarcastic snark than bad grammar and syntax. I be hoist on me own petard matey.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
@Punchy:
You cut the first sentence off. Anyway, I’m always happy when you disagree with me, given your track record.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
@E.D. Kain:
Name one.
BGinCHI
@Bob Loblaw: Thanks for posting this stupidity on 2 threads now.
Others do it/have done it, so nothing to see here.
Quisling.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
@Jay C:
He said he thought he was acting alone.
BGinCHI
I’ll tell you who is not a fucking straw man:
Marshawn Lynch
Jesus:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/marshawn-lynch-run-video_n_806304.html
Stillwater
@BR: Yep. If he’s shown, somehow, to be Teaparty/GlennBeck/etc guy, two things will happen. One will be the apologists saying he was not a real and true conservative but rather that he’s cray-zeee! The second will be people who accept that he’s a conservative, but argue (ala the McArdle Defense of the Hiller murder) that it’s the victims who are at fault, since conservatives have been saying very clearly that they will resort to second amendment options if liberals don’t let them get their way.
Lovely party they’ve got there.
Gina
And this is why I luv you sooooo much – like, big swoony internet crushy kinda love.
Also, too. Does anyone remember, back in the 90’s, how Rev. Al Sharpton was excoriated, by the professional right and the mainstream media, for inciting violence when some follower or sympathizer of his firebombed a store in Harlem that Sharpton had led protests against? It seemed that everyone who wasn’t a Sharpton fan was for charging him with something due to his heated rhetoric that painted the store as an interloper due to the fact that it wasn’t black owned.
I remember being caught in a Sharpton protest/mini-riot at work, it was sad to see the serious krazy that so many of the loudest and most violent of his followers were afflicted with – like, “haven’t been on my meds for months ARRGBBBHHHKKKKJJKKSSSLLLLGGH!” But hey, it made him famous and has worked out to be a good business model, at least in the start-up phase, since he’s toned it down a bit.
Also also too. Sister Souljah. Isn’t it just hilarious how we aren’t supposed to be worried or disgusted when nice white ladies and men go on with violent gun and bullet rhetoric but we should totally SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING when some black people do the same.
Cacti
But we do know things. Lots of them.
We know that a Democratic Congresswoman, and numerous others were shot in what appears to be a premeditated assassination attempt.
We know the identity of the primary suspect. We know there are strong indications that he was mentally unstable. We know that despite this, he was able to obtain a firearm for commission of the act. We also know that information has surfaced indicating the suspect had ties to American Renaissance, a fringe, right wing, white supremacist group.
AuldBlackJack
@WereBear:
And worse! If you don’t stop Sarah Walker will never agree to marry Chuck Bartowski. And it will be all your fault.
Doodyhead.
batgirl
Watching the sheriff right now and he is not backing down about the hateful, violent rhetoric. Also talking about the crazy gun nuts. Good for him.
harlana
I know one thing, the Sheriff is really, really PISSED about all the violent rhetoric and the fallout and is making no bones about it as we speak. I don’t really know anything about this guy, but I love his honesty and passion.
Citizen_X
About the shooter’s motivations, or what makes the tide go in and out, or why the weather seems to be getting warmer, or anything, really! Life’s just full of mysteries!
Can we get that as a tagline?
Corpsicle
@E.D. Kain: “Lots of straw men here Doug.”
This sort of passive aggressive bullshit is why you are criticized so much. What fucking straw man? Put up or shut up.
Chad N Freude
This article informs us that the gun sights on the infamous graphic were not gun sights at all:
Interviewer Tammy Bruce, the “chick with a gun and a microphone”, did not ask why, in that case, the graphic was quickly taken down.
harlana
@batgirl: He’s not letting up, good on him. And I loved the last comment about how the severely mentally ill who created disturbances used to be taken to treatment facilities and now they’re just out on the streets, for obvious reasons, increasing the danger to the general public.
Triassic Sands
One thing we do know is that the NY Times is currently running an article by Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike that is rife with “the both do it” reporting. Despite the fact that “they both do it” the examples of Right Wing rhetoric and actions are specific with names, while the Left Wing crimes are all generalized without specific references or names.
— NYT
No actual events or names, just nebulous Republican accusations.
— NYT
Apparently, when Giffords’ office was vandalized (after the health care vote) that was just an instance of her painting herself as a victim.
BGinCHI
@Chad N Freude: If “it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent,” then the whole Palin crowd is as fucking stupid as they are dishonest. And that’s saying something.
Joseph Nobles
More on the “mentally ill” front.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/loughners-college-instructor-i.html?wprss=44
And that guy could legally buy a gun in Arizona.
Gina
@harlana: Great, I can just hear the Becktards fixing to wail. Something along the lines of “Now they’re out to put us patriots in those FEMA camps Glenn warned us about!”
jk
@4tehlulz:
“Jon Kyl exists to make John McCain look good.”
I don’t think Kyl is succeeding in this endeavor. McCain still looks like a 1st ballot Hall of Fame asshole to me. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate should go down in history as the most cynical, selfish, and unpatriotic act ever committed by a major party presidential candidate. Inflicting this knuckle dragging neanderthal onto an unsuspecting electorate was McCain’s Fuck You Gift to America.
Davis X. Machina
@harlana:
Not doing so saves money, though. If one of the severely mental ill goes off, and starts shooting, sure, people will die. But if you’re not one of them, if you survive — and the odds are in your favor — your taxes were lower, are lower, will continue to be lower in the future, and it didn’t cost you anything, it saved you money. And there’s no risk to you from the ones that aren’t even violent.
John Donne was wrong. Every man is an island.
Cacti
@harlana:
Clarence Dupnik is the anti-Arpaio. He’s lived in Arizona since he was a small boy, has been an AZ law enforcement officer for over 50 years, and Pima County Sheriff since 1980. He’s a tough, no-nonsense western sheriff, the real kind.
What he is not is an out of state, grandstanding buffoon, who moved here to live out their Wyatt Earp fantasies and terrorize the local population (i.e. Paul Babeu and Joe Arpaio).
aimai
I think what bugs me the most about the Kain claim that “some” are “using this for political advantage” is that it is a special kind of false equivalence. He appears to be balancing “people who shoot people” with “people who use other people’s shooting of people for political advantage” with the implication that if the shooter is a Republican then the opposite must be the Democrats. But that’s wrong. Because the Republicans are, by definition, “using” this tragedy for political advantage whether they cop to having been its proximate cause or not.
Here’s the thing: a terrorist act has been performed. It has, in fact, terrorised ordinary (non tea party) citizens and made people *all over the country* afraid to run for office, serve in office, and attend god damned office hours for fear of wandering loons with guns and grievances. In this country wandering loons are non denominational–but wandering loons with guns and grievances? Those are publicly and determinedly on the right. New Hampshire had a law, passed under the Democratic legislature, that forbad the bringing of guns into public meetings of the legislature. That law was *just repealled* by the new Republican House majority.
The teaparty/right wing militia story is that tragic deaths from gunfire are either the result of liberal action (Waco) or justified attempts to stave off government repression. They are peddling various versions of that right now with the current right wing story that it was a leftist who shot Giffords because she had dissapointed the left and was moving right.
In the real world when we look at the results of a terrorist act like a car bombing, or a suicide bombing, we don’t actually inquire too hard into the mental processes of the bomber–terrorist organizations recruit scared, frightened, lonely, alienated and mentally ill people to perform the suicidal acts that get them attention. As others have pointed out Bin Laden and Rwandan Radio stations give the lie to the notion that for an act to be political and terrorising it has to be carried out by the same person who voiced the thought.
We may never know to a certainity, with tweets and connections, why Loughner did what he did. But the right wing is and always will be benefiting from and manipulating tragedies like this for political gain. It fits their world view by either 1) terrorizing democrats, 2) strengthening the paranoid world view of gun owners, 3) fometing anti Obama/democratic government sentiment, 4) feeding into a sense of right wing victimization. Just read the various tea party manifestos from after the shooting? They are chock full of grievance and self pity. Its a self reinforcing cycle.
So, ED, if you are going to be hating on people who are “using this tragedy to score political points” try hating on the right side of the aisle. Because its pretty much all political points over there.
aimai
tomvox1
@Stillwater:
This:
Kind of like this EDK gem:
Maybe not technically “start” their own new religion but tell everyone else how to worship their angry, Jeffrey Hunter-looking One True God, sure. But I guess the religious right are not “conservatives” in ED’s mind and have no influence on the “movement.”
I need another Bloody Mary…
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
@Triassic Sands:
I still say that until they find the accomplice, if there was one, it’s very hard to say what caused this. ED could be write that it’s a lone crazy, but it seems strange to say that he thinks it’s a lone crazy when the police think he had an accomplice. I’m not saying that I know there was an accomplice.
But it’s reasonable to ask what ED knows here that the police don’t.
Stillwater
@harlana:
Fixed for precision.
Triassic Sands
@John Cole:
Rumor has it that the commenter at DKOS will be getting a reality show on TV next season. The specifics haven’t been released yet, but the contract is rumored to be in the low seven figures. Apparently, the show will be all about how exciting it is to comment on a blog, including the fact that individual comments frequently change the course of history. Special guest appearances by Markos himself, as well as other big name bloggers, may be in the works. There is also speculation that the DKOS commenter may use the publicity to launch a run for the presidency in 2016. Anticipation for the show is threatening to overshadow all the other new TV shows in the upcoming season.
eemom
splendiforous. Can I be your groupie?
LikeableInMyOwnWay
In a world where politics is everything and everything is politics, it’s natural that people want to get this event cut out and pasted onto the proper spot in the scrapbook. Although it would be nice if they waited until all the facts were in. Right now the facts are pretty thin and they are sure to change with time.
But …. to me this is not about politics as much as it is about a society that accepts the idea that a deranged person can walk around with a compact, powerful semiautomatic weapon and 30-round clips in his pocket, walk up to a gathering of people and squeeze of 60 shots before anyone can even fathom what is going on (if his reload hadn’t gone bad). He could easily have killed two dozen people in less than 5 minutes. We basically got lucky on this one.
I think that putting up with this kind of potential violence is nuts beyond all reason and sensibility. Nuts. Fuck the second amendment …. and I am not an anti gun person. I have made my own gun as a hobbyist, from scratch. But this is just fucking nuts.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I believe the rhetoric on the right has been obviously meant to keep people riled up, and that it is coming from those in the Republican party who are and want to become leaders. This needs to be criticized constantly, and never stopped.
But I want to know if the shooting was caused by the rhetoric, because if it was, then I will never let someone on the right get through an argument without hearing about it. But, you cannot use it as evidence until it is evidence. Because if this man was just listening to the voices in his head, then every time you try to talk about violence caused by the right, it will be turned against you.
MikeJ
What’s wrong with scoring political points? Isn’t politics the way rational people settle differences? Isn’t the alternative to scoring political points pulling out a gun and shooting people?
And what points are being scored? Republican leadership uses violent rhetoric, and they should stop. That’s about it. How is that wrong in any way?
jk
@Chad N Freude:
“Interviewer Tammy Bruce” – who once referred to Barack and Michelle Obama as trash. Bruce is a bargain basement version of Laura Ingraham.
@BGinCHI:
“The whole Palin crowd is as fucking stupid as they are dishonest.”
I think Sarah herself is more stupid than dishonest, but either way one slices it, the fact that the MSM continues to treat this obnoxious buffoon as a credible presidential candidate is an obscenity and an outrage.
AxelFoley
@Bob Loblaw:
Shut up.
Cacti
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
I don’t think it’s an either/or proposition.
It was likely politically motivated in some way, and it’s way too easy for the mentally unstable to get their hands on guns in this country.
And the “more guns make us more safer” rationale doesn’t wash, because this rampage took place in wild-west, gun-lovin’ Arizona.
Even if everybody was packing heat, if someone snaps and starts blasting, they’re going to get at least a few people before anyone is able to react.
Davis X. Machina
@LikeableInMyOwnWay:
I do too, but the tide is running the other way.
Take, for example, Article 1, section 16 of Maine’s state constitution, passed by referendum in 1987: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.” Every citizen has a right that shall never be questioned. (The referendum deleted an earlier reference to ‘common defense’ along the way.)
Some day the state supreme court is going to either find existing regulations re felons, people with restraining orders, the mentally unfit, etc. unconstitutional, or do a mean day’s work of finding the constitution to not say what it says.
Arguments are useless in a theological debate. Faith cannot be refuted.
srv
@BR: Didn’t BJ used to have tea party ads?
AxelFoley
@Gina:
Yup. Like I said, even some folks on left-leaning blogs are quick to go with the “Oh, he’s got mental issues” route when some white guy does some shit like this.
Let someone black do the same shit, and he’ll be called a criminal and a thug.
Heh, perfect example: Mike Vick.
No one claims mental illness with him killing dogs. Oh, no, he’s just the most scummiest scumbag on Earth.
The dude that did the shootings yesterday: Gotta be mental illness.
harlana
@tomvox1: “not concerned with creating new religions . . .”
Mr. Kain, See,
1) Fragmented Baptists, which are legion;
2) Megachurches
jk
@MK:
Great Fallows post. I also liked this post from George Packer.
“For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn’t a big-government liberal—he’s a socialist who wants to impose tyranny… This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.) And it has gone almost entirely uncriticized by Republican leaders. Partisan media encourages it, while the mainstream media finds it titillating and airs it, often without comment…”
h/t http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2011/01/judging-from-his-internet-postings.html
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@Cacti:
Hmm. I didn’t say it was an either or thing so I don’t know what that means.
And … I can’t really tell from your post what you are saying about “packing heat.” Are you saying that having us all pack heat is a good idea? Or is there sarcasm in there? Sorry, I am a little too braintired this morning to parse out your intent.
LBNL, I absolutely do not agree about the political angle. A truly crazy person is just crazy, it is crazy, to coin a phrase, to assign political meaning to the acts of a truly insane person. It’s basically just gratuitous projection. The crazy person is going to take on the appearance of what is going on around him and act crazy. This guy might have shot two dozen people because he feared that they were reptile aliens, if reptile aliens were on the news lately.
After a re-read I think I see what you are saying about packing heat. But I think we don’t agree about the political angle. Working a political angle where a real insane person is involved is just …. nuts, if you get my drift.
Of course that won’t stop people on both sides from doing it ….
Bob Loblaw
@BGinCHI:
Which cause am I betraying this time?
Between this and the racist charge, this place is just all kinds of fun.
But if thinking there is no top-down solution to the problem of right-wing, reactionary politics is so infuriating to your upset mind, I’m not sure what I can really do. This could have happened just as easily in Texas or New Mexico or Nevada or Idaho.
There weren’t any bullseyes on those states on Palin’s map. That’s my point. The Republican party could moderate itself, and it might not have changed what happened yesterday one bit. This has been going on for a very long time.
Midnight Marauder
@E.D. Kain:
Funny, I see just as many straw men in your post here as I do in DougJarvus Green-Ellis’ original post.
Funny that.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@Davis X. Machina:
I like things that are beyond question, it makes things so much simpler ;)
BGinCHI
@Bob Loblaw: You’re right, BL, but that’s not the issue. Are you just trolling?
LikeableInMyOwnWay
@AxelFoley:
Not sure what that point is worth … but mental illness is real, and it isn’t something that lends itself well to political opportunism. mainly because it, itself, operates entirely out of the realm of political opportunism.
Does it matter whether Charles Manson is a righty or a lefty? Or a commie or a Sunni? Or does it matter that he is just bone fucking crazy and will come up with a reason to kill people because that is probably the biggest thrill he can gin up in his miserable excuse for a brain?
Little Dreamer
I find it very interesting that several places I looked for commentary on yesterday’s incident, early on, (before anyone knew he identity of the shooter) I found right-wingers who were promising the shooter was going to turn out to be an illegal immigrant hispanic. When that didn’t pan out, they went silent and decided to get angry at the left for our reminding people of Sarah Palin’s crosshairs target list. This is all just convenient gamesmanship to them.
arguingwithsignposts
@BGinCHI:
Bob Lobsterclaw is *always* trolling, just not from the winger perspective.
Little Dreamer
Somebody broke the internet again.
J sub D
But, but, but, …
THAT’S DIFFERENT!!!
Jay C
@Cacti:
It’s only been just about 24 hours since the shooting, so it’s probably just a matter of time, but:
Anyone want to start a book on how soon some “pundit” publicly brings up the argument:
“If everyone was packing heat, Gabrielle Giffords/Judge Roll/everyone else would still be alive“?
Calouste
@E.D. Kain:
Hey Kain, it’s almost 3 hours since DougJ asked you to give an example of his strawmen.
I can only assume that the delay means you are compiling a really extensive list, right? Not that you are a cowardly, incoherent piece of shit who can’t back up their remarks and just uses them to throw the discussion off course?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand it is foolish to try to draw a direct causal line from, for example, Sarah Palin to the shooter. If history has taught us anything it’s that homicidal maniacs have used everything from Jesus to Jodie Foster as proximate causes of their outbursts, and while we might recognize the subjects in their brooding fantasies the process itself is often unrecognizable.
On the other hand some very good points have been made; why are righties acting so defensive about generic condemnations of hatred and vitriol? Would we even be having this discussion if right-wing hate media weren’t so pervasive?
So I don’t blame Sarah Palin, but if she dials down some of her bullshit as a result of this then maybe some unintended good will have come out of it.
Mark S.
@Calouste:
Kain will have his response in eight hours after this post has been pushed to the second page and everybody’s forgotten about it.
Omnes Omnibus
@J sub D: Random protesters =/= leadership of a political party. Sarah Palin =/= some dude with a sign and a mohawk.
The Populist
@Bob Loblaw:
I am reading he was a member of Stormfront which is a right wing org that hates anybody who isn’t white. Far right wingers like to whine that left wing thought is evil yet I don’t see liberals shooting rightwingers they disagree with.
Seems to me you lose the argument in terms of the far right b.s. pushed forth by the tea party and Palin seems to be the evil thought.
I don’t hate conservatives as I once was one. Still am in some areas but I never could buy into the hypocrisies it promotes. Like John Cole I woke up and do whatever I can to make sure cons pay for their destruction of America at the ballot box and other areas.
The Populist
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Yes, but as a highly visible celebrity, she is pushing a dangerous ideological purity argument that makes people like Jared fall off the edge. She has a responsibility to tone it down. She can make her fucking point by sticking to the facts of why her brand of conservatism is the way to go. Using gunsights to target enemies and tweeting hateful messages about other dems is not appropriate.
Nickws
@J sub D:
Ha, Professor J sub D here is basically saying he thinks Loughner is an active follower of the Tea Party in the same way Brown was an active Abolition movement man.
Heckuva job, genius.
Nellcote
@John Cole:
The DKOS commenter wrote a big fat apology diary, currently on the REC list, while LaPalin scrubed her website. Yeah, it’s all the same.
MikeBoyScout
Brad DeLong has an interesting observation up
“I Would Very Much Like an Alternative Explanation of This…
Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva are both Democratic members of the House of Representatives from Arizona. On Tuesday January 4 the number of hits on the “Gabrielle Giffords” page on Wikipedia began to rise. The number of hits on the “Raul Grijalva” page did not. By Friday January 7 more than three times as many people were looking at Gabrielle Giffords’s Wikipedia page than had done so in a normal day in the previous month and a half.
On Saturday January 8, of course, six people were murdered in the course of the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.
Please give me an explanation of this so that I can stop being a nutbar conspiracy theorist…“
mapaghimagsik
@adolphus:
That’s how the grammar commies get you.
mapaghimagsik
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
If simple lessons like that carry such a price, there will be scarce few alive to learn them.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@The Populist:
I just got done saying everything you say here, except this:
We can’t know this, and it’s foolish to pretend we do based on such paltry evidence. That doesn’t mean that Palin doesn’t have a responsibility, as a public figure, to not say stupid and inflammatory things, because she does. She had that responsibility before the shooting and she has it now.
Lit3Bolt
@aimai:
10 billion times this.
Then again ED Kain has an unattainable standard of proof for us to reach, doesn’t he?
A lot of this discussion reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is watching TV, talking about violence on television. Does it desensitize us to violence? Sure. Does it make us less empathetic? You bet! Does it promote violent solutions and glorify violence? Absolutely. But does it CAUSE violence? ….well, that’s hard to prove.
The trick is to ask the right question.
johnny walker
I would agree that it’s too early for any conclusions as to whether the guy was left, right, center, none of the above or etc. The first time ED mentioned the guy being politically ambiguous, he said it was hard to discern “at this point.” Seemed to me that his point was the same as DougJ’s but I guess that’s open to interpretation given he didn’t include that caveat the second time.
Less ambiguous was the part where Doug turned what ED called “speculation” that the guy acted alone into part of some know-it-all centrist asshole routine. I guess you gotta figure out some way to differentiate yourself if you’re going to write a post slamming a guy for basically writing the same thing you just did, but that’s a pretty hamhanded way to go about it.
ETA: Though I don’t know why Kain would feel the need to include his speculation in the first place. Yes, tell us more about this compelling gut feeling you have…
E.D. Kain
@DougJarvus Green-Ellis: the ‘centrist’ thing whereby you dismiss anyone you disagree with who isn’t super partisan. Or maybe putting words in my mouth….? That’s two posts today you’ve put words in my mouth actually.
E.D. Kain
@Midnight Marauder: as Doug so eloquently put it, name one.
cleek
do you really not understand the difference between “We don’t know if X is true at this time so let’s not say X is true” and “We don’t know X at this time therefore X can’t be true” ?
seriously ?
Midnight Marauder
@E.D. Kain:
Cute.
But why don’t we address the fact that you actually argued “I don’t like seeing people immediately use this tragedy to exploit their political opponents either, especially before the fog has lifted and the facts have come to light,” while simultaneously writing that the killer’s rhetoric doesn’t seem truly conservative? Because, you know, you have all the facts that have been discovered about the case, right? You are in a position of knowledgable authority to make that claim, right?
You want people to believe that there is some kind of equivalence in violent rhetoric coming from the two respective political parties, as well as an equivalence in how their respective leaders have responded to that rhetoric. Unfortunately for your argument, that is not borne out by actual examples from the real world in which we exist. There were multiple documents cases of killers and would be killers being directly motivated by the violent, revolutionary rhetoric of prominent mainstream conservative leaders. And yet, you still need examples to spur you to a place where you can rise beyond bullshit false equivalences and acknowledge the reality as it actually is.
No one needs to show a direct link between Sarah Palin and Loughner; that’s not the fucking point. We’ve already done the business of establishing that such connections can and do happen regularly. The point is that there are clear parties responsible for creating an atmosphere in which violent behavior like this is seen as an appropriate, rational, and acceptable response, and they’re all wearing the same fucking jersey.
Bill Murray
@cleek: well except ED then said he thought X (or perhaps not X) was true.
Lit3Bolt
@E.D. Kain:
ED, if you’re getting shit for anything, you’re getting shit for this sentence.
This seems like a neutral statement, but it’s not. You’re quite obviously referring to Dennis, ABL, DougJ and others who are lumping this tragedy with Sarah Palin and Fox News and the like. Sarah Palin has used violet imagery and words in reference to HER political opponents…why does she get a pass for years while those who condemn the rhetoric when tragedy strikes get a scolding for being intemperate and rushing to judgment? Shouldn’t the rush to judgments belong to those who get rich off this violent political imagery then are not held accountable by any conservative in the slightest? Why no scolding for them?
Secondly, if Sarah Palin suffers politically because of this (as far as we know) unconnected event, then TOUGH TOODLES. She’s the one who stirred the pot of crazy; to pretend now that the past is all down the rabbit hole and has no bearing on the here and now is disingenuous to the extreme. She and others used the gun sights rhetoric to describe Giffords, and now is held accountable for it, unfairly or not.
Finally aimai is correct that now the Right will gladly soak up the benefits of a terrified and demoralized public and a weaker Democracy while gleefully evading any blame or accountability. It’s a similar pattern that has occurred with abortion doctors, civil rights activists, and others in this country. That’s why we call it “stirring the pot of crazy” and conservatives are experts at it and have been for decades. But then we get the plaintive cry from ED Kain, “but we don’t know.” Implying of course, we should conclude nothing, sadly acknowledge the status quo, and just wait patiently while morally scolding others for “rushing to judgment” and “exploiting their political opponents.”
E.D. Kain
@Midnight Marauder:
Where do I say this?
Midnight Marauder
@E.D. Kain:
You say it when you write vacuous, passive aggressive statements like this:
Implicit in your comment is that people who are arguing that the conservative movement and its leaders who have facilitated and capitalized on violent rhetoric and actions over the years, are somehow not speaking a truth. You continue to try to make the argument that it’s important for there to be a direct connection between Palin and Loughner, while ignoring the truth that the political landscape is litered with countless examples of people dying directly as a result of people being motivated by violent conservative rhetoric.
That is already a thing that happens regularly. You don’t get to blithely dismiss it as not being the truth.
Church Lady
@John Cole: I don’t have a dog in this hunt and don’t really feel like speculating on what might have driven this young man to commit such a heinous act. At some point, the public will have a better idea of what possibly motivated him to do what he did.
Was it Sarah Palin’s map targeting Giffords and other Democrats for defeat? I don’t know and neither does anyone else. For all we know, he never saw it. For that matter, how could anyone know that perhaps it was the map that Kos put out, with a bullseye on Giffords district, along with other Blue Dogs, saying that they needed to be “targeted” for defeat. No one knows and anyone that says they do is a liar.
Is political rhetoric too heated. Yes. On both sides, from some candidates themselves, to talk radio, opinion TV, and most certainly the internet. Heck, all anyone has to do is read the comments on both right wing and left wing sites to see the crazy.
Once someone involved in investigating the case comes forward and says that this is why this seemingly disturbed young man shot not only a Congresswoman, but a Federal Judge, a child, an employee of the Congresswoman, at least three elderly people, and others, that is when I will feel like we have some knowledge of his motivation. Until then, it is nothing but idle speculation presented through a partisan lens.
the 9-yr-old kid who got shot
Still using this as a “mine’s bigger” contest, you two? Real mature.
I can’t grow the fuck up. What’s your excuse?
cleek
@Bill Murray:
do you have a link to this?
xian
@BGinCHI: I suspect it’s not literally trolling but a case of placing a “no one sees what the real issue is the way I do” filter on everything. Sort of a low-rent situational gnosticism.
The Raven
@Church Lady: “Is political rhetoric too heated. Yes. On both sides,”
Matthew 7:3-5
Croak!
eemom
@Lit3Bolt:
Excellent.
@Church Lady:
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what true false equivalence looks like.
You disappoint me, Church Lady. I know you get off on annoying semi-trolldom, but I didn’t think you were actually this stupid.
eemom
@cleek:
I believe he might be referring to statements such as these from ED’s post:
I would like to know how that is something other than, um, speculation.
Ija
Be careful DougJ. Cole loves him some ED, he might throw you off the blog for slagging ED so much. I would hate to see you leave, but I think if it’s a choice between you and ED, Cole would pick his beloved ED in a second. Just be careful.
Church Lady
@eemom: Honesty would require including my entire statement in your block quote, including the part about Sarah Palin. I’m disappointed, but I’m not surprised, that you are a complete partisan hack. This is what I was talking about.