By now, it’s likely you’ve already heard that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona has been shot. As I’m writing this (Saturday evening), it’s unclear if she will survive or not. It does seem clear that a number of other people have been killed, including a nine-year-old girl.
There are a number of sources of information. I’ve been using Talking Points Memo, Andrew Sullivan has been live blogging the news and NPR has been making regular updates.
The journalists have been searching for information about the attacker, Jared Loughner, and they’ve found things like his youtube account and a Myspace page. In this modern era, it seems attackers aren’t going to be anonymous non-entities like Oswald was.
As his youtube videos seem to indicate, Loughner was unhinged. Perhaps because his motivations were murky, journalists are now pointing to the violent language that surrounded the political campaign against Giffords.
Giffords was one of the targets in Sarah Palin’s “cross-hairs campaign,” which listed a number of Democrats that Palin wanted defeated. A US map was displayed with cross-hairs over the states with a targeted candidate.
Gifford’s opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a fundraiser where donors could actually fire an M-16. From TPM, the fundraiser’s blurb:
Get on Target for Victory in November
Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly
Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of all of this.
Do you think semi-violent language, like Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat … reload” line and other tag lines, can lead some disturbed people to take violent action?
Do you think that modern politicians should take pains to moderate their language?
Update from Custador: US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head by a gunman in Arizona, is responding well to treatment and can follow simple commands after surgery, doctors say. (BBC Website). Fantastic news! Hope you don’t mind me slotting that into the end of your post, Vorjack.
Update from VorJack: Not a problem, Custador. Man, this is one tough lady.
Update from Dan: This is what Gabrielle Giffords said back in March:
We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. People who do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.
Unfortunately, she was right.
Absolutely no doubt about it. Limbaugh and Beck have blood on their hands. So do Palin and Kelly. We are well aware in this day and age that violent rhetoric WILL act as a call to action to a disturbed few, and anyone deliberately using such rhetoric has to take responsibility has a completely predictable consequence.
Don’t expect an apology from any of those named above. They will; try to shift the responsibility onto the Government – “Oh look what happens when you ignore the will of the people” (cue crocodile tears)
Freedom of speech is a great privilege. With it comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Or at least not mortally recklessly.
fsck the “will of the people” — this comes down to the needs of the people, and those needs are not being met. We need universal health care, we need funding for mental health services, we need to have the funds, unfortunately, to institutionalize the poor sods who’re so sick that they cannot reasonably function in society.
THIS is what happens when the needs of the many are ignored, to serve the desires of the few.
This. It messes with my mind how good the Republitards / Tea Baggers are at getting people to vote against their own interests. It borders on Jedi mind control:
“This is not the healthcare that your children need. You want them to die young and in pain of easily preventable illnesses”
“Yissir! USA! USA! YEEEEHAW!”
It messes with my mind how good the Republitards / Tea Baggers are at getting people to vote against their own interests.
If that is, in fact, what is happening. Which is at the very least a highly arguable point. Many people look at a program that has mandatory buy-in which is enforced by a tax penalty as an up-front economic hardship (to say nothing of coercive), and so their calculation of their own interests may well be quite different than what you think it ought to be. To say nothing of the fact that many people legitimately are concerned about what effects this shift in funding paradigm will have for the delivery of actual health care, as well as concerns about how this particular plan enriches private insurers a great deal at the expense of people who may not have wanted to buy their product otherwise.
If there is a (narrowly tailored) legitimate political point to be gleaned from this tragedy, it is that “…we need to have the funds, unfortunately, to institutionalize the poor sods who’re so sick that they cannot reasonably function in society.” Mental health care in the US just plain sucks, and the roots of that problem go way deeper than insurance.
Isn’t it mandatory in America for a driver to have car insurance? How come all that people didn’t complain about that?
Then why did they oppose the public option?
Because the public option was “socialism”, and we can’t have that in the US of A!
Isn’t it mandatory in America for a driver to have car insurance?
Depends on the state.
How come all that people didn’t complain about that?
They did, for the most part, but since it was done piecemeal, state-by-state, there was no national outcry. The opposition was especially fierce in no-fault accident states (e.g. Massachusetts), since it essentially requires buying into a system that pays for others’ bad acts.
This was all about 15-18 years ago.
Also, it is easy to make the argument that you opt in by buying a car; it is a relevant expense associated with that choice (no more or less than car maintenance or gas). You can’t really act to “opt in” to your own health (as an asset), nor is there any way to “opt out” of the consequences of bad health. So, not the best analogy for the medical insurance situation.
So far as I can see (and I am far from being an expert), while the amount of coverage you need varies from state to state, there is nowhere in America where you can drive on public roads without insurance. Florida is the only state that doesn’t require liability insurance, but they do require personal injury protection, so that may be an exception.
See here, for example.
Also, some states (like the one I live in) allow people to self-insure, so long as they can demonstrate they have enough liquid cash set aside to cover liability, but I wouldn’t consider this the same as being uninsured.
The trouble is that the rest of us can’t “opt out” of an individual’s bad health and insurance decisions either, unless we’re willing to step over bodies in the gutter. Having lived in Haiti, I know what that’s like. I don’t think the opponents of health care legislation are being realistic about the need for social safety nets.
[Apologies for traveling a bit off topic. Generally like what you say, but wanted to get that one off my chest.]
The trouble is that the rest of us can’t “opt out” of an individual’s bad health and insurance decisions either, unless we’re willing to step over bodies in the gutter. Having lived in Haiti, I know what that’s like. I don’t think the opponents of health care legislation are being realistic about the need for social safety nets.
This is true, and I think that this criticism in particular is what is being glossed over rather glibly by opponents. The rhetorical tinge from the right that there is “nothing wrong with health care” and America has “the best health care in the world” is profoundly irresponsible, and to be sure, one of the major policy problems is that people do not assess their own health risk very well and opt out of (at least catastrophic) coverage, only to incur the costs up front when something does happen.
But I think it is important to keep in mind that simply because we can diagnose a problem, it does not mean that the solutions presented will actually address the problem identified effectively, or cause lateral unintended consequences similar in scope to the present problem.
True, but just saying “No,” stomping feet, shouting “Liar,” etc. is worse than trying to address a problem, much as I like to do those things, myself.
True, but just saying “No,” stomping feet, shouting “Liar,” etc. is worse than trying to address a problem…
Of course. On the other hand, I think it is a grave error to assume that simply because some of the rhetorical leaders of an opposition comport themselves in a certain (disreputable) way, that that corresponds with either the reasoning or the attitude of the majority of people in agreement with their underlying conclusion.
I personally take umbrage with the automatic assumption (common on the left) that people who disagree with liberal policy prescriptions “simply don’t know their own interests” or “stupidly are voting/fighting against their own interests”. People have many disparate interests that intersect with the business of government, and they arrange the significance of those priorities in a manner that suits them; it is the height of condescension and arrogance for another to usurp the right to determine the interests of another citizen.
So, while the rhetorical excesses of the opposition to health insurance reform are lamentable, that shouldn’t translate into assumptions about why individuals may not agree with it.
Ok. So what was the resolution? The point of the analogy is that the legal argument boils down to whether it’s legal to force somebody to buy a private product or not. But legal or not, your best interest, short of a public option, is a mandatory private insurance, since the more people contributing the cheapest it results for each individual.
I have not made that grave error and I’m tired of the mockery and straw men from the Right. I’m interested in a rational discussion of opposing views, including the emotional underpinnings of those views. I haven’t found any takers. Maybe here?
I have not made that grave error…
That’s good. Dear Custy did above (and we rarely see eye-to-eye on this stuff), which is what caused me to bring it up and push back a bit. Bender (just above) reinforced the poignancy of that criticism.
…and I’m tired of the mockery and straw men from the Right.
With Alan Grayson and a couple of other firebrands out of the picture, the Right has really finalized taking a monopoly holding on the worst rhetorical excesses. On the other hand, there is plenty of straw going around for both.
It is also not illegitimate to talk about tendencies and patterns; when I say it is a common tactic for people on the left to assume the interests of others (and say so), I mean to assert an empirically testable proposition that to all appearances is actually true, much as when someone might say that the right engages heavily in the politics of personal destruction, they are also asserting an empirically testable and probably true hypothesis.
I’m interested in a rational discussion of opposing views, including the emotional underpinnings of those views. I haven’t found any takers. Maybe here?
I’m willing to engage. I should say up front that I am actually a (somewhat tepid) supporter of heath care reform, so I’m devil’s advocating a bit and probably can’t get to the emotional root of the stuff you’re looking for (since I do not share it with opponents). I do enjoy taking policies and positions apart to see what makes them tick.
——————–
Ok. So what was the resolution? The point of the analogy is that the legal argument boils down to whether it’s legal to force somebody to buy a private product or not.
And given that the legal argument turns, very simply, on whether something falls to the purview of the states or the fed, it is an important argument to analyze. Is the rule of law to be discarded when inconvenient?
But legal or not, your best interest, short of a public option, is a mandatory private insurance, since the more people contributing the cheapest it results for each individual.
Unless that is not what you prioritize in terms of interests. What if you are of modest income, with children, and you decide that you would rather forgo medical insurance if it means you can save enough money to place your child in good schools? Is that arrangement of priorities illegitimate? Is it right for you to make that choice for them? Some people need a vehicle to get to work; if they have to choose between getting medical insurance and making car payments (in order to secure an income), is it so easy a choice, so simple an arrangement of priorities?
This is why I look askance of people glibly asserting what is in other peoples’ “best interests”.
Cool! Tepid devil’s advocacy is a good match for me, too. I’ve got several competing inner voices. Don’t worry, none of them is armed…but I am a bit of a grammar groupie.
This would be swell if the rest of us were truly off the hook from supporting sick, destitute children. We’re not, by any means. As long as emergency rooms are obliged to care for people at their door, and as long as churches and charities hustle for our contributions, the uninsured are just beggars-in-waiting.
Actuarial science and public health are legitimate concerns for a society.
[I'm so glad to take up this argument again. I never got a response from my cousin-in-law when I wrote: "You can't possibly predict how much money you would need to personally set aside to 'self insure.'"]
Oops. My block quote totally didn’t work. I see no quote, and all the rest of my text is blocked. Better luck next time for me with that.
[Fixed - VJ]
This would be swell if the rest of us were truly off the hook from supporting sick, destitute children. We’re not, by any means. As long as emergency rooms are obliged to care for people at their door, and as long as churches and charities hustle for our contributions, the uninsured are just beggars-in-waiting.
It is true that health care is a collective action problem; the costs are going to be socialized one way or another so long as we continue to agree that if a person is sick to the point of disability or risk of death, and there exists an effective treatment, they are entitled to receive it and live regardless of means. A good principle, I think.
The problem, from a social point of view, is distributing limited resources (only so many doctors, so many diagnostic machines, so many hospital beds, so much of certain medications) efficiently and ethically. Some of those resources are responsive to demand (esp. medications) and so ought to be responsive to market pressure (and, by-and-large, are). Some, (esp. doctors) aren’t very responsive to market incentives; we can’t simply produce doctors to meet demand, especially specialists.
The secondary issue is one of moral hazard. While we may agree as a society that everyone should get life-saving care, if the short-term costs for failing to maintain good health practices (such as insurance premium costs) disappear, so does the only short-term incentive to maintain such habits. People are extremely poor at managing long-term risk, and so anything that monetizes that risk in short-term increments makes it easier for people to be responsive to long-term risk and change habits accordingly. Avoidable costs (and scarce resources) are certainly eaten up by avoidable conditions caused by bad habits, and so raise the price of health care in general.
Actuarial science and public health are legitimate concerns for a society.
I agree. I do think, though, that when it intersects with other legitimate interests (like maintaining rule-of-law, integrity of economic systems, and so forth), that it needs to be weighed soberly. It would do no good to succeed in fixing health care only to destroy other, equally important pillars of civil society.
Thanks, VJ!
Totes agree, Elemenope. BTW, love your name!
World Peace, Voila! I’m going to take a victory lap with the dogs.
Then why did they oppose the public option?
This is finally where one gets into more ideologically driven territory. I personally think that a public option single-payer insurance would have been infinitely preferable to the current situation of forcing people to buy private insurance. One of the biggest problems with health insurance is there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the provider and the customer, unlike in nearly every other industry (even insurance industries), and so market forces do not work properly to provide efficiency and reduced cost. Instead, they create perverse incentives to undermine the quality of the product. Market failure is a hard thing to explain to people who are terrified of “socialism” and suspicious of all non-market solutions.
Also, there is a decent argument to be made that such a system would be unconstitutional, being (way, way) beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. I personally think that while some politicians may be using the constitutional arguments as a fig leaf to avoid grappling with the policy implications and problems of the current system, maintaining legal and constitutional scope of government is an interest that shouldn’t be scoffed at. Of course, some would argue in response that that ship has sailed a long time ago, but I don’t think that really excuses current heedlessness in order to address the vagaries of the moment. I tend to think if one is to do something, one should do it properly and within the wider structure of rules that exist for quite good reasons.
Seriously, what kind of a banana republic you live in that people have to choose between health and education?
Anyway, that’s the point of the health reform, isn’t it? That nobody has to make that choice.
Illegitimate? it’s fucking INSANE. Who renuounces health care for his own chlidren? Are your public schools so dismal you’re willing to risk their lifes so they can go to a “good” school?
Seriously, what kind of a banana republic you live in that people have to choose between health and education?
Um, wow. Didn’t England just make that choice as a society, eschewing health care cuts and instead instituting huge tuition hikes at universities? Didn’t that cause riots? The same choices are made at an individual level all the time, with families of small means deciding what to save for and what to expend on to improve their circumstances and those of their children.
Anyway, that’s the point of the health reform, isn’t it? That nobody has to make that choice.
If that is “the point”, then the actual act has missed the mark, since it will guarantee that some people will now not be able to prioritize their child’s education because they are required to buy insurance instead. The decision is *always* made; whether it is made by the actual person it affects most or if it is made by someone far away who thinks they just “know better” is the crux of the issue.
Illegitimate? it’s fucking INSANE. Who renounces health care for his own children? Are your public schools so dismal you’re willing to risk their lives so they can go to a “good” school?
I’m (mostly) a product of public schools, and they aren’t *all* dismal, but some are, sure. But people don’t get to choose where they are born or what the prevailing conditions there happen to be; they have to prioritize and make choices with what they have given those conditions. If you’d like to have a airy abstract argument about whether it would be better if all schools were palaces and health care were composed of unlimited freely replenishable resources, then OK, but I don’t think it’s going to have much applicability here in reality.
Your desire to call those who would make a different prioritization than you “fucking INSANE” is, everything else aside, not helpful.
The car insurance analogy doesn’t stand up for one big reason. Not all people have cars, and no one is required to buy a car.
Health is a completely different issue, nearly 100% of people will go to the doctor in their life, and huge percentage will go to the hospital for a major service at least once in their life.
Im against the mandate simply because it’s back door socialism. I’d rather have straight up socialized health care. It would be cheaper and more efficient.
Because not everyone has to have a car, or a drivers license. I know, personally, several people who live in big cities (NYC, Wash DC) who do not own a car. Therefore, they don’t need to have auto insurance.
Being alive, however, isn’t exactly something you can “opt out” of easily, yanno?
(And I actually do support the idea of universal healthcare, I just have no clue how to go about implementing it. *shrugs*)
implementation isn’t that hard Tyrrlin. It’s getting the political will to make it happen that’s the hard part.
You can see how England and Canada transitioned from market based medicine to socialist based for two great examples.
The impossibly hard part seems to be convincing people that it’s in their benefit. Once we have a majority that see’s this reality, changing our system should be fairly painless. Well, as painless as any change can be.
Freedom of speach should not include freedom to incite violence. Limbaugh, Beck and particularly Palin have been whipping up their Tea Baggers into a fervour and getting them to wave their weapons around in public for far too long; they cannot seriously act surprised that somebody did something extreme. Their whole ideology is extreme. Of course, it doesn’t help that the shooter is batshit insane, but the world has no shortage of insane people, and the leaders of the Tea Baggers should know that.
Sadly, I suspect that there are those who will regard this as a good thing because it gives AZ a shot at electing a right-wing candidate, however what I hope is that it will give those on the fringe of the Tea Party pause and make them take a step back. That might be enough to dampen the whole movement down in time. I can’t remember a time when American politics has been as frightening as it is at the moment. The Beeb has the story, and quotes an AZ sheriff who summed it up well:
“Freedom of speach should not include freedom to incite violence.”
In principle, I agree with this. In practice, I don’t think you can actually craft a law forbidding hate speech without having either holes that let a lot of violence-inciting rhetoric slip through, or a definition so broad that it applies to stuff that actually isn’t an incitement to violence.
Now, if someone explicitly calls for violence, that’s one thing. But we usually only know after the fact what speech has incited violence. Should we ban all speech that could conceivably do so? Whose criteria should we use in making the determination? Surely, it’s easy to see that before long there would be very little speech permitted.
Incitement is a punishable offense in the US Custador.
Getting convictions is tough though.
I can imagine.
“If there’s no flag in the constitution then the flag in the film is unknown.
There’s no flag in the constitution.
Therefore, the flag in the film is unknown.
Burn every new and old flag that you see.
Burn your flag!
I bet you can imagine this in your mind with a faster speed.
Watch this protest in reverse!
Ask the local police; “What’s your illegal activity on duty?”.
If you protest the government then there’s a new government from protesting.
There’s not a new government from protesting.
Thus, you aren’t protesting the government.
There’s something important in this video: There’s no communication to anyone in this location.
You shouldn’t be afraid of the stars.
There’s a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth, there’s no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It’s with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a woodpecker. This new bird and there’s only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government?
I want you to imagine a comet or meteoroid coming through the atmosphere.
On the other hand, welcome yourself to the desert: Maybe your ability to protest is from the brainwash of the current government structure.”
This is not right-wing political rhetoric. It’s just nuts. Simple.
“Do you think semi-violent language, like Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat … reload” line and other tag lines, can lead some disturbed people to take violent action?”
Probably. On, the other hand, *this* guy does not seem influenced by anything mainstream.
“Do you think that modern politicians should take pains to moderate their language?”
Honestly I’d settle for only saying true things, even better than moderation.
I have to agree with you on this. I really wish I could point at those that I say are spewing hate but think this guy seemed way out there. I do find it odd how fast law enforcement started about his troubled past.
The link between this and the tragedy is so tenuous that I have trouble justifying even a consideration of the notion of contributory causation. The temptation is certainly strong: turbulent political times, political figures as victims of violent crime. And yet, all indications point to this merely being the outcome of the deranged thought process of a paranoid schizophrenic. John Hinckley, Jr. shot Ronald Reagan because he became obsessed with Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver; if one thing doesn’t provide the ideation or impulse, it is another.
When people of (relatively) sound mind start engaging in violence for political ends, then the connection would be justified. I don’t think we are actually going to get there, at least not any time soon.
Politicians should moderate their rhetoric simply because shrill rhetoric crowds out earnest policy discussion and consideration. Shrill rhetoric makes politics less pleasant and thus drives away good talent. Shrill rhetoric denigrates in the public’s mind the actually important work of organizing the affairs of the state, drives cynicism and disengagement. There are plenty of good reasons why politicians shouldn’t sink to epic levels of doucheatude at the simple drop of a hat, but I don’t think keeping the airspace clear of anything that a nutter might possibly use to act on their preexisting nuttery is not one of them.
+1 internet for a really good reason why politicians should tone it down.
+10 internetz for the phrase ‘epic levels of doucheatude’.
I agree. I’m certainly no fan of Sarah Palin, but there are some wide leaps between cause and effect here (even if that connection can be made at all). We’ve all said things that could be taken out of context–or even in context–by some nut job as a pretext for atrocity.
Except that Palin et al. should KNOW that there are crazy people out there who don’t understand metaphor and take things literally. Taking metaphors literally is one of the HALLMARKS of schizophrenic and other paranoid/delusional people.
Seriously! It shows a severe lack of judgment on her part. The sensible position for any public speaker ought to be “I better be careful what I say… there are crazy people out there.”
Putting human beings on a “crosshairs” map is just plain stupid. Surprise! Surprise! Sarah Palin is just plain stupid. I think we’ve known that all along.
“Except that Palin et al. should KNOW that there are crazy people out there who don’t understand metaphor and take things literally. Taking metaphors literally is one of the HALLMARKS of schizophrenic and other paranoid/delusional people.”
If this is the measure of permissible speech, then a huge number of musicians, poets, writers, video game designers and politicians need to be stifled immediately.
I don’t think we want to head down that road.
I agree that Palin isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but where does lack of judgement become criminal?
If we have to start moderating our speech to prevent crazies from doing crazy things, where does it stop? Would you have banned Helter Skelter by the Beatles, just because it make Charles Manson kill people?
Her poster was in poor taste, and I hope she apologies for it. I also think that from a political strategy point that it’s great that she has that poster out there. It will be a nice tool to cut her legitimacy in the future.
There, I might be the first person to use this shooting to leverage political advantage. I know I surely won’t be the last.
Bill and Revy beat me to pretty much what I was going to say.
A speaker simply cannot be held responsible for what a lone crazed idiot gleans from the speech. When Malcolm X called white people “devils”, would it have been appropriate to have held him responsible if one of his dimmer, less stable audience members went on a white person exorcism spree?
For fear of being misinterpreted, we could never speak.
“If I can’t shout “fire!!!” in a theater, then I think that public figures should not put HUMAN BEINGS on a CROSSHAIRS MAP.”
This may be where our disagreement lies.
I agree that shouting “fire in a crowded theater” (presumably when there is no actual fire), is impermissible. For a good reason. At the moment you shout “fire,” reasonable people are going to panic, likely stampede, and injury will follow.
Printing a map with crosshairs on it does not have that same immediate causal connection to dangerous acts. No reasonable person will look at the map, pick up a gun, and shoot the targeted person. It’s a relatively remote possibility that a derranged person might take that action. But the possibility is so remote that it doesn’t warrant supressing the speech.
Apparently we disagree about the remoteness of the possibility of attack.
Whoops – posted under the wrong comment.
Response was to LRA.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. If I can’t shout “fire!!!” in a theater, then I think that public figures should not put HUMAN BEINGS on a CROSSHAIRS MAP.
(You get that, right.. a CROSSHAIRS map? A map with GUN CROSSHAIRS on it. Right?)
If I can’t shout “fire!!!” in a theater, then I think that public figures should not put HUMAN BEINGS on a CROSSHAIRS MAP.
They are *totally unanalogous things*. Falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded enclosure is not protected because there is no expressive component whatsoever; the person is not conveying an idea, a point of view, or an argument, but merely sowing chaos. On the other hand, making a crosshairs map of political opponents accompanied by a call to *defeat* these opponents electorally clearly portrays a political point of view and a metaphorical course of suggested action (which is actually spelled out on the actual poster, in case anyone was confused).
You can’t tell the difference?
On an almost completely unrelated topic, I recently learned that the falsely shouting of ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a completely hypothetical case that has never been tested in a court in the US, or any other country. It’s just the political opinion of Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr.
Not sure this is true. While arguably dicta, Holmes writing for a unanimous court in the Schenck case cited it as a a clear example of the kind of speech Congress can curtail.
Yes the facts of the case did not deal with shouting fire, but Holmes pretty clearly said it was speech that could be regulated.
True, but it was still his opinion. Opinion isn’t law. Im not arguing that it would stand up in court, I just found it an odd bit of history that the prime example of speech that should be curtailed is an example that has never been tried.
Actually, a written opinion of a sitting justice is law. Case law.
It’s dicta, not law.
Kelley had his crosshairs on Gifford…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/jesse-kelly-post-crosshairs.jpg
Seriously, if my political opponent was spewing this sort of sh*t, I’d call him up and say, “Dude! You’re going to get me shot! Stop it!”
If he continued, I’d take it as a threat and get police protection.
I take violent speech, metaphorical or not, seriously.
“I take violent speech, metaphorical or not, seriously.”
Should we censor painters, musicians, writers who may inspire violent acts? Some of the greatest works of art in history are overtly violent. A sick mind could easily use them as fuel for violence.
No. That’s taking it too far. Unless said music specifically says “Kill so and so” or “Shoot so and so”, in which case, I’d take it seriously.
But you really think a campaign that puts crosshairs on people is appropriate? Seriously? That shows no lack of judgment?
“No. That’s taking it too far. Unless said music specifically says “Kill so and so” or “Shoot so and so”, in which case, I’d take it seriously.”
So Ice Cubes “Cop Killer” should be banned, but Eminem’s fantasy about killing his mother shouldn’t? Who gets to decide this? New federal agency?
“But you really think a campaign that puts crosshairs on people is appropriate? Seriously? That shows no lack of judgment?”
Appropriate? In my opinion no.
Something I want the government supressing? Also no.
I think Gifford’s family should sue Kelley and let the courts decide. I don’t think that political opponents should use violent language when talking about their opponents. It is insensitive and wrong.
Look– I grew up in a violent home. I ‘m sensitive to violent speech being connected with violent actions.
That suit won’t survive a motion to dismiss.
It isn’t just the map in isolation, it is the whole campaign of Kelley. Whatever. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
It is my experience that people who are comfortable using violent language are violent people. If *I* were Gifford, I would have called up Kelley’s office and told them to stop and that I took that kind of language as a threat. That’s me. This is my opinion.
I don’t think that political opponents should use violent language when talking about their opponents.
I agree, but there is a huge and necessary distance between that particular ethical imperative and a legal prohibition, because in that gulf lies the difference between the expression of ideas and the efficacy of action.
I think Gifford’s family should sue Kelley and let the courts decide.
I think everything else aside, that would be a gigantic waste of time and money, but even if it weren’t, I don’t think using the civil courts to do an end-run around speech protections is any more ethical than the behavior you are decrying.
It is insensitive and wrong.
Not everything that is wrong is illegal, and not everything that is wrong *should* be illegal. The price of freedom is the use of freedom for bad purposes. For a particular freedom to retain vitality, it must be constrained to the absolute least amount reasonably possible. Attaching conditions and exceptions will, and historically always has, metastasized into major curtailments unrelated to the original cause of concern.
LRA, the real difference is who initiated the violence. If the shooter was a mostly sane, ultra conservative Christian who just lost his job and spent all day watching FOX news and commenting on conservative blogs, this would be an entirely different conversation.
Instead, the shooter looks to be just a crazy nut. The kind of crazy that can be started from listening to Beatles records, or thinking that your dog is talking to you. That kind of crazy can’t be blamed on Palin, where my first example could be.
I’m stating and have stated that is shows a lack of good judgment on these people’s part. If they had any sense whasoever, they would use some other metaphor to deal with the defeat of an opponent rather than SHOOTING her.
C’mon.
We all agree with you on Palins lack of judgement.
The question is, what should be done with people who show this lack of judgement? I’m arguing that they should be called out in public (like we’re doing) and that they should be mocked and ridiculed (which we did when they first came out, and we’re contiuing to do today), and that we shouldnt try to pass laws against their speech, or try to curtail their liberties.
Revy – well put.
What if you were the person that the crosshairs were put on?
Like I said, I would have told Kelley’s campaign to stop. I think this is the grown up case of bullying. I would have taken that kind of rhetoric seriously because I know that there are crazy people who would also take it seriously. That kind of rhetoric used against me would make me fear for my life.
Like I said, I grew up with violence and I know how speech can affect it.
I must agree with Elemenope. Nut jobs can hang on ANY statement or reference, no matter how inoccuous or even pleasent, as an excuse – and it can never be anything save an excuse – for their chosen actions. I don’t like Palin and co.’s rhetoric, but I honestly do not believe any causative effect for this tragedy occurred from it – this insane man did as he did for his own unfathomable purposes.
–Slacktivist
Admittedly, the rhetoric against Democrats is not as blatant or as extreme (nor as directly connected in this case) as the rhetoric against abortionists, but the basic point remains: mainstream politicians have been calling for violence, describing the political left as terrorists deliberately out to destroy America, and when people take the action those claims demand, they back off, insisting that they never really meant it, that you’d have to be crazy to take them seriously…
Okay, maybe Lee Harvey Oswald burned his name into our memories to the point where we all notice, but I’m not the only one (and this series of posts is from 2005):
http://forum.ih8mud.com/chit-chat-section/69760-criminals-names.html
Weird. BTW, it’s Jared Lee Loughner.
Nope, not only is it a trope (Gunman With Three Names), half the examples are from Real Life
And someone already updated the page to include yesterday’s shooting. Damn, Tropers move fast.
Tropers are wily, crafty little buggers. :)
Common names + confirmation bias.
Someone should do a study. We can find out exactly how common those names are in the general population from census data; all we need to do is generate a list of every mass murderer / serial killer / whatever other crimes you want to include, and see if those names appear more often than statistics would suggest.
I’ve always wondered whether the distribution of John Smiths across different groups (felons, phD holders, soldiers, etc.) differs in a statistically significant way from the population at large.
Statistics can be a tricky thing. They don’t make suggestions, they just assign probability. Trying to assign probability to something like famous assassins is difficult because of the really small sample size. It’s really easy to get a small coincidence to look like it has a causal, or at least strongly casual, relationship.
The only way to really do a statistical study on this topic would be to have thousands of lone assassins in the sample group.
And of course, the conclusion. Even if you could show that there is a strong relationship between a persons name and their actions as a killer, what on earth would that mean? What is the mechanism that links those two things? That by itself should be enough to debunk any conspiracy theory on three named assassins.
A lot of people have 3 names, do all these people go by all 3 names. I mean, before they became infamous, did people really refer to them by their full 3 names or is that something they use in the media to distinguish Lee HARVEY Oswald from all the unfortunately named Lee Oswalds?
The rights of one extend until they interfere with the rights of another.
It’s one thing to be talking with your neighbor or coworker and say things like “We should take-out this politician” and it’s a totally different thing to say it to 500,000 loyal followers. To spread hatred of any group of people is to rob them of their 1st Amendment rights of free expression because spreading hatred creates a hostile social atmosphere against those people.
We currently see this happening to a few groups: primarily Muslims, Mexicans, Homosexuals and Liberals. We’ve seen this done in the past to Blacks, Jews, Irish, Catholics and Asians (and to some degree it continues). It got so bad for Jews that many changed their names to hide their Jewish identity. Many Muslims are doing the same thing today for fear they would not be able to get hired or promoted if the company discovered their religious identity.
This incident is not the first act of violence against a Democrat in recent years. Her office was vandalized and other district offices have been shot or vandalized:
For example, see: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-13/politics/arkansas.shooting_1_hastings-critical-condition-headquarters?_s=PM:POLITICS
Fomented hatred against a group of people infringes on that group’s 1st Amendment rights. It places them as the target of hostilities across society. It marginalizes them by demonization. This is what has been happening to Liberals, Muslims and others.
Canada has hate speech laws. John Hagee was banned from Canadian TV because he incited hatred against Muslims. As someone with hundreds of thousands of followers, the Canadians saw a problem with him standing up and shouting hateful and violent rhetoric against Muslims (Homosexuals and Liberals are also targets of Hagee). It’s not difficult to create the criteria for what constitutes hate speech. The importance of protecting minority rights against speech that incites wide-spread hostility is a 1st Amendment issue. My free-speech rights should not be used to take away another person’s or group’s free speech rights.
Right-wingers use fear, anger and hate to motivate their flock. It’s no surprise that there has been violence against Liberals. It’s actually surprising that there hasn’t been more that what we’ve seen so far. I remember when people were still afraid to be called a Liberal. It’s wasn’t too long ago. Radio talk show hosts and Fox TV demonized anything and anyone Liberal. It’s worked. It created the fear, hatred and anger these right-wingers needed.
If you want to see how far this can go, just take a look at the challenges Muslims face. Park 51, Murfreesboro and many other incidents. Just run a Google search for “mosque shot” and you’ll find page after page of incidents.
Of course, I blame much of this on our society’s lack of reasoning skills. Without the skills of reason, it’s easy to manipulate society by way of fear, anger and hate. With such powerful base survival emotions harnessed to serve the will of those at the reigns, almost anything is possible. Our history is full of examples: Germany, Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda… all were made possible by the deliberate fomenting of hate, fear and anger to drive action.
We need to change this dangerous course. My vote is for reason — not to erase religion or opinions I don’t agree with, but to restore civility to society.
To spread hatred of any group of people is to rob them of their 1st Amendment rights of free expression because spreading hatred creates a hostile social atmosphere against those people.
Fiddlesticks. Nobody is entitled to a warm, receptive audience, and often social change is fostered by speech in the most hostile of circumstances. The only thing that crosses the line, speech-wise, is actual directed threats of harm and action pursuant to such speech. To argue otherwise is to argue, simply, that people are not responsible for their own actions and must be “protected” from dangerous incendiary language lest they become inflamed.
Such a rule would have muzzled Malcolm X and Susan B. Anthony. No thanks.
To voice a disagreement is one thing. To demonize and dehumanize for the purpose of intimidation and marginalization is another. There is a huge difference.
To voice a disagreement is one thing. To demonize and dehumanize for the purpose of intimidation and marginalization is another. There is a huge difference.
Are you even familiar with Malcolm X’s early and middle period speeches? Calling white people “a race of devils” is about as literally demonizing as you can get. But the kicker is that without his more extreme voice, it is likely that MLK’s more moderate message would not have gained traction. Extremism and moderation are inseparable rhetorical partners (see, e.g. the Overton window), with the second a neutered and ineffectual stance without the first being present in the same rhetorical ecology.
Freedom means, in partial consequence, a reduction of safety. In order to be free, one must allow for the outside possibility that some will misuse their freedom to bad ends. What you are advocating is trading away some of that freedom for the gossamer possibility of increase in safety. A trade that would have vitiated most historical campaigns for actual equality and justice had it been in effect, and impoverished us in ways we cannot measure.
The closest X came to incitement was the “by any means necessary” comment. There is also a difference between an oppressed, dis-empowered minority voicing such rhetoric and the empowered, oppressive majority voicing it.
Yeah, I know… it seems to be a rabbit hole.
Especially when the empowered, oppressive majority acts as if they are a persecuted, oppressed minority, using rhetoric such as “our way of life is under attack” and “our children aren’t safe in this culture any more” and “the moral fabric of society is breaking down”, so “we should target the offenders and take them out”.
The closest X came to incitement was the “by any means necessary” comment.
That’s a helluva lot closer than the Palin poster.
There is also a difference between an oppressed, dis-empowered minority voicing such rhetoric and the empowered, oppressive majority voicing it.
I agree, but from the perspective of the wider society when judging what is appropriate, that can’t matter. For what it’s worth, X was engaging in criticism of that very society, and so they were not likely to (and did not) give him the “oppressed” benefit of the doubt. We can’t, therefore, make those distinctions when deciding the broadest strokes of appropriateness of this or that rhetorical technique.
Actually, it’s not closer than the Palin poster if you take all of the Palin rhetoric and other politicians rhetoric into account. The Palin poster was published in the context of a growing tide of militant, violent rhetoric — not in isolation.
I’m not advocating trading freedom for safety. What I’m actually advocating is Reason as a mandatory course of study in public schools in an effort to foster a rational and functional society.
I believe the root of much of this is the lack of ability for people to think critically about what they hear, read or see. Politicians, marketers and scam artists take advantage of this fact and push people’s emotional buttons to convince them of just about anything. Just look at the healthcare debate. It’s insane.
So, all I’m advocating is sanity. There should be no disillusions that society will ever reach 100% sanity, but I don’t think it a foolish endeavor to strive for as high a percentage as possible.
If people are skilled in the practice of critical thinking, such rhetoric would fail to be effective and eventually stop being used. Arguments would then have to stand on their true, practical and functional merits — not on “they gonna kill yer grandma’s cute little fluffy baby kitten with evil satanic blood thirsty death panels” type emotional triggers.
The only way to solve this issue and foster a society where freedom of speech is enjoyed more equally is to foster a society who is able to think. We teach children how to language, math, history and social studies but we don’t teach children the skill of thinking. So, we end up with insane rhetoric from all directions — politicians especially.
The saddest part is that the rhetoric works.
Once it stops working… then, perhaps we will see the real change we need.
That’s what I’m really advocating.
I agree that critical thinking skills can only help, but honestly I have little fear of a catastrophic collapse of political restraint from violence in the US for these reasons. The rhetoric is rendered basically impotent by those conditions.
It’s not just about violence. It’s about functioning. We have oppressive systems in our society and because of this we live in a sea of injustice. Foster thinking skills, reduce oppression and injustice.
Violence is part of it, but isn’t denying people life-saving medicine or surgeries for lack of wealth just as violent? Tens of thousands of people die every year for fear of medical bills. More die from denial of care from insurance companies.
The assumed legitimacy of our leadership is becoming more and more in question due to widespread corruption in our political system (corporate funding of political campaigns, Supreme Court Justices ruling away basic civil liberties, DOJ increasing prosecution of “conspiracies” instead of actual crimes through FBI entrapment stings, lack of transparency, the more troubling aggressive opposition to transparency, etc.).
Malcolm X and MLK were assassinated, btw.
Yes, they were. Do you think they were killed because of rhetoric?
I suspect that they were assassinated because the lived at a time when the social atmosphere was hostile towards them, and therefore violence against people belonging to their common group was seen as acceptable by many — highly encouraged by some. This is achieved through a deliberate campaign of dehumanization and demonization of the target group (blacks in this example, liberals in the Giffords incident). The tools of this dehumanization and demonization campaign is ignorant, bigoted, hateful, militant, violent rhetoric (yeah, I know that’s a bit heavy on the adjectives).
We currently see this same type of rhetoric in the form of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hagee and so many others.
Now, if you are asking if rhetoric pulled the trigger, then no. However, a hostile social atmosphere greases the wheels of the types of actions we saw against Malcolm X, MLK and now Giffords.
There is an idea that the shooter is 100% responsible for his actions and no one else carries an once of responsibility except him (or his accomplice, if he had any). In a way, that’s true. However, I don’t believe it’s that simple. There are influencing factors that share, to some degree, partial responsibility for creating the climate that enabled, encouraged or otherwise motivated the shooter to action. I don’t think it is wise to ignore this.
It’s like saying the hornets are 100% to blame for stinging you after I threw a rock and struck their nest hanging above your head.
So, perhaps another good question to ask is: do actions (by mouth or by hand, because speaking is an action) that, in combination with other actions (the cloud of rhetoric from multiple voices), influence someone to commit acts of violence have a level of responsibility in the act it supposedly supported through influence?
Then there is the mental illness question…
Tutsis in Rwanda had a right to live their lives right up until some Hutu extremists murdered the Rwandan president and then blamed it on unknown Tutsis, used it to whip up sectarian hysteria and then engineered a massacre in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsi men, women and children were butchered with machettes. You think the median American is any less susceptible to manipulation than the median Rwandan? Sorry, but I don’t. The men who engineered those massacres were tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. So no. No fucking way does anybody with a national following have the right to stand up and use violent words and graphics against any other individual or demographic – and by “right” I’m using the accepted ethical definition not the American legal definition. The two differ wildly.
Tutsis in Rwanda had a right to live their lives right up until some Hutu extremists murdered the Rwandan president and then blamed it on unknown Tutsis, used it to whip up sectarian hysteria and then engineered a massacre in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsi men, women and children were butchered with machettes.
Uh huh.
You think the median American is any less susceptible to manipulation than the median Rwandan?
Yes, but not because of any special quality that Americans, per se, possess. The difference between the two situations is that there is a vibrant and well-entrenched civil society apparatus in the US, and next-to-none in Rwanda. Not only is there rule of law, but also functioning (basically uncorrupt, at least in the relevant sense) police, courts, and public servants, a free press, and perhaps most importantly because of these institutions a deeply ingrained acculturation against violence as a tool of politics. Same is true in your country, give or take.
Take the situation of Bush v. Gore, 2000. In many countries (that lack a functional civil service and public confidence in the legitimacy of public institutions), that situation would have led directly to bloody civil war. In contrast we bitched and moaned for a few months and then settled (non-violently) back into business as basically usual.
Freedoms of speech and so forth only really function in places that have an intact and functioning civil service that enjoys the assumption of legitimacy of its people. In such places, speech that leads to violent action is punished, the rule of law is obeyed, people are acculturated to expect these things and generally act accordingly.
This is why an attempted assassination of a political leader is met here with a universal reaction of horror, rather than business as usual. So while Americans as people are every bit the panicky, easily corralled monkeys as everyone else in the world, the enduring institutions we have built channel many of the dangers of having freedom to demagogue and act like asses away from the body politic and make freedoms sustainable.
The example you used was Bush and Gore; if Bush had been insane enough to start crying “Cheat!” (which would evidently have been deeply hypocritical) and to try to use the situation to engineer a conflict, do you think he would have had difficulty doing it? At least in certain states?
Absolutely. Bush would have had little to no chance starting a conflict. The first reason is already stated by Elem. We have a stable, relatively corruption free government. The election was settled by the supreme court, with all justices present, and the congress approved. Bush would have been powerless if the Court had gone against him.
The second reason is Fat and Lazy. In that election, I think we had less than 50% voter turn out. As long as people can get Bud Light, 80 channels of football and Nascar, and $9 dominoes pizzas, they won’t revolt. The only people who revolt are hungry people who have their civil liberties taken away.
Also, if a loosing presidential candidate every directly called for violence, he would be immediately arrested for incitement.
I’m not convinced of that, to be honest. If Palin were in the same position, I honestly think the tea baggers would react violently at her behest, and if she was arrested I think it would just make things worse.
“It’s not difficult to create the criteria for what constitutes hate speech.”
Untrue.
I trust no person who tells me he knows better than I what opinion I may or may not hear.
Also, at least one piece of evidence seems totally at odds to your portrayal of hate in America. Muslims do not appear to be particularly targeted in the FBI hate crimes report for 2010: less than Asians, 20 times less than blacks, 5 times less than whites, 9 times less than Jews (a group of similar size). The crimes against other groups also led to more deaths than those against Muslims (0). Anti-Hispanic crimes were lower than anti-white crimes. There’s no clear comparative group for anti-gay crimes, in any case one hate crime of any sort is too many.
The FBI commits most of the hate crimes against Muslims (sorry, couldn’t resist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide_and_efforts_to_prevent_it
I’ve watched some of Loughner’s video, and honestly, I’m sure he’s mentally ill. This means it’s impossible to chalk up his actions to any kind of decision-making process, including a desire to follow the orders of Tea Party extremists. A lot of his rants make no sense (government mind control, by manipulating grammar?). There is some Palinesque Tea Party-style rhetoric in there, yes, but much more of it is just plain nonsensical (if not incoherent) paranoiac rambling. Other reports about him claim that he behaved in disruptive and unbalanced ways since his early teens — which coincides neatly with this assessment.
Moreover, none of his material states that he’s acting on the orders of Palin or the Tea Party. If he were a true Rightist automaton, and if he truly had bought in fully to Rightism and considered it virtuous and a noble cause, I doubt he’d have failed to mention that at some point in his various rants.
So at this point — barring the discovery of other material to the contrary — I find it difficult to believe he was following Tea Party orders, or that he attacked Giffords due to Palin’s graphic. I also am not sure that any other kind of “heated rhetoric” led him to this. Unbalanced, paranoid people are going to do unbalanced, paranoid things … and it need not be “caused” by any external factors.
That said, it’s clear that, in the wake of this shooting, that all of this “targeting” and “lock and load” talk is just plain inappropriate — it’s in poor taste, if nothing else. And it needs to be retired. There can’t be any excuses for it; there can’t be any defenses or rationales; there can’t be any triangulations or disavowals. (You know, statements along the lines of, “I condemn violence but understand why he did it.”) The mature response for Rightists who’ve used heated rhetoric in the past (and that’s not limited only to Sarah “Reload” Palin) is to say, “I’m sorry I spoke/wrote that way. I never intended anyone to view my words as a command for violence, but now I see that it was in poor taste. This should never have happened. I apologize for having used this rhetoric, and will not do so again.”
Yeah, I know … it will never happen. It would be viewed as a tacit admission of guilt — even though it’s not. Politicians and pundits (on either side of the aisle) NEVER willingly admit ANY amount of guilt for anything. (Whenever they do, it’s usually because of external forces, such as an investigation or criminal proceedings, but even then, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-b-rangel"?some of them still refuse to give in.)
So having said all of this, and even in light of my conclusion that Loughner was not acting on any Rightist’s orders, what’s clear is that the time has come for politicians and pundits to ratchet down the rhetoric. Even if they don’t want to, and even if doing so might imply some degree of guilt. To continue this sort of language, in light of the shooting, is simply inappropriate. We’ll see if our leaders and our mouthpieces possess the maturity to accept this and then follow through on it. My guess is, they don’t, and they won’t stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw
I’m amazed. That’s one, anyway, who said something along the lines of what I did. Let’s see if there are any more “takers,” especially any on the Right. I’d bet serious money that no Rightist is going to say anything similar.
As soon as Loughner’s name was released, incorrectly spelled at first, I went to a site called Underground Democrat, and found that the web-fu masters had already dredged up his identity on YouTube, MySpace, various other biographical tidbits, and noted that Free Republic had just gone dark. The guess was that the Freepers were scrubbing his postings off the site. Wonder if that will prove to be true.
In my thankfully limited experience, when nuts commit political violence, they often have the delusional expectation that others will “rise up” and join their “crusade.” I think that was true of McVeigh, and I’m sure its true of militias.
This might be a good week to pay attention to what your more squirrelly associates are saying. I wouldn’t rule out copycat crimes. While everybody is lamenting irresponsible political speech, let’s also think about how f*cked up our mental health care delivery system is, and our pathetic gun laws. I can’t think of ANY reason why a anyone not a badge-carrying member of law enforcement should own a magazine that holds more than 6 rounds.
To have a functioning mental healthcare system, we would need a functioning healthcare system. Unfortunately, most Americans have been convinced that the cost of healthcare is an individual rights/responsibilities issue instead of a social issues. I wonder how long it will be before they are convinced that education, law enforcement, libraries and highways should be privatized.
People in America are just not equipped with reasoning skills in our schools. I think this is deliberate because critical thinking skills promote the questioning things like authority and religion. It seems like there is a “keep the people down by keeping them dumb” campaign (perhaps I’m just paranoid).
While I don’t think adding reason to the public education system will cure mental illness, I do believe it would create a social environment where mental illness is more easily identified and treated. The idea that mental illness is taboo would fade and seeking treatment (for oneself or for another) would be done more readily. Of course, the cost of keeping people mentally healthy shouldn’t push people into bankruptcy — but it does.
Politicians (and everyone) should moderate their language, but they should also moderate their thinking. Not in the sense of “thought police” or “thought crime” or any Orwellian concept, but in the sense that they should (and we all should) develop their critical thinking skills so they can help foster a rational, functioning society.
Unfortunately, it seems many politicians have opted to utilize other tools to achieve their short-terms goals at the expense of society.
Besides affecting people with violent tendencies, hate speech also serves to intimidate. It’s certainly tricky terrain to figure out where an individual impinges on the next individual. That’s why “free” speech deserves serious discussion, even though I always talk my way back into simplistic positions after parading around the block.
At what point is someone effectively yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre? That covers commands or alarms shouted at an emotional crowd. I think that Angle’s repeated “concern” that “people” will (appropriately) use “Second Amendment Rights” to “protect” themselves from government oppression also blends into this category. I would like some restrictions on discussing violence toward living people, but realistically it’s absurd to involve legal remedies, so what can anyone do? Sue public speakers in civil court? Criminy.
At what point is someone voicing a serious threat? That’s what Restraining Orders are intended to address and we all hear how well those work.
At what point is someone supporting oppression? I, myself, have issues with misogyny and pornography. Call me old fashioned, but I feel depressed to be part of a group that is viewed as amusing prey by dominant segments of my society. Don’t get me started on Asia!
The use of “targets” and language therein is nothing new. This faux outrage does nothing more than distract from and diminish the reality that there are crazy people out there that will do crazy, harmful things.
Rwanda. Kristal Nacht.
I’m not content to let the crazies just do crazy, harmful things.
There is a neon bright line between saying and doing. Punish the doing, for certain. Saying, not so much.
No one is content to allow that to happen, but these attempts to make it into some sort of partisan issue are transparent and useless to the discussion as to what, if anything, we can do.
Such a tragedy. I’m skeptical that we’ll ever fully understand the mind of the person who did this, and I don’t think we’ll ever know with certainty if this type of Republican rhetoric contributed or not to this tragedy.
But, it’s my opinion that this rhetoric is altogether inappropriate and completely irresponsible. Clearly, the right recognizes this, even if they won’t admit it, as demonstrated by pulling various language and ads.
I think it’s a huge stretch to say that the rhetoric caused this, but in my mind, it’s hard to deny that it threw fuel on the fire.
I’m not convinced that “clearly, the right recognizes” that their “rhetoric is altogether inappropriate.” You conclude that because they’re pulling their ads now? I conclude that’s because they want to avoid complaints. If they clearly recognized inappropriate rhetoric then why was it repeated so successfully throughout the last few years? Don’t mean to sound combative, but I’m not willing to let them off the hook so easily for their trash talk.
I was thinking that this morning. If Sarah Palin is so convinced that there was nothing wrong with “Don’t retreat – RELOAD!” then why was it pulled? Palin’s message is all about bringing down the establishment (admittedly to replace it with her own brainless theocracy); reading Loughner’s politics and trying to suggest that it’s somehow seperate from that seems disingenuous to me.
It wasn’t pulled – http://twitter.com/#!/SarahPalinUSA/status/10935548053
I wish someone from Gabrielle Giffords’s family would go to the press and say something like, “We reject Sarah Palin’s self-serving expression of condolences to us just as we would reject being spit on by a rabid animal.”
Okay, I’m done being angry.
“Do you think that modern politicians should take pains to moderate their language?”
I’ve been thinking about this issue since first hearing of the shooting yesterday. I have to say, I’m disinclined to think Palin’s – or any other politician’s – political rhetoric caused this barbaric act. Hell I won’t even blame the Beck’s and Limbaugh’s of the world. Trust me it pains me to not blame these people. I am about as far left as you can get in American politics.
A few points:
1. Based on the limited information we know about the shooter, I just don’t see a causal link between political rhetoric and this act. He appears to have been severely mentally ill. While political rhetoric was part of what he latched on to, it’s an incoherent hodge podge of ideas not clearly attributable to any single philosophy. As near as I can tell he may well have been an atheist. Shy of a statement from him that “I did this because of X…” I’m unwilling to blame it on any given philosophy or idea. Even if he makes such a statement, I’m more inclined to attribute actions on mental illness than actually being driven by a given philosophy.
2. The question of whethere political speech drove this act reminds me a lot of discussions about the motivations behind the Columbine shootings. After that tragedy, we were overrun with talking heads blaming popular music – Marilyn Manson in particular. I firmly believe musicians were not responsible for those murders, and that speech should not be curtailed because of the derranged acts of a few clearly mentally ill people. Many people on my end of the political spectrum agreed. I think we have to be consistent on this.
3. I don’t understand why, in the wake of these tragedies, we as a country always look for some quick fix to complex problems. The question of which public message (and it could be anything) a mentally ill person latches on to as motivation to kill is a side show to the real problems. We should be asking how our systems so badly failed to identify and help a sick person, and how that person was able to buy a semi automatic hand gun, walk in to a public space and murder innocent people. The solutions to those problems are much harder – and probably more expensive – than whether Sara Palin, Marilyn Manson, or Big Bird inspired the act, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be addressed.
4. It’s worth asking if political discourse has gotten too rough, but not because of this. Frankly, I don’t think it has. Particularly when compared to the history of American political discourse, but reasonable minds can disagree about that. The better question might be whether over the top speech has made it impossible for those in government to get anything done.
I have a schizophrenic sister. Some days you can walk in and say “hello” and she goes into a psychotic rage.
Trying to assign a rational motivation to an irrational mind is a recipe for going insane oneself.
I agree with Bill, but I’ve got to chuckle at #3: “I don’t understand why, in the wake of these tragedies, we as a country always look for some quick fix to complex problems. …We should be asking how our systems so badly failed to identify and help a sick person…” Talk about mythical quick fixes. How exactly are we supposed to swoop in and “help a sick person?” Mental illness is a broad category, describing a “group” no more susceptible to violence than the general population.
I also wonder why anyone should be buying anything besides Constitutionally-envisioned flintlock muskets, but I don’t aim that question at the “mentally ill,” except to question the sanity of anyone who would desire a weapon designed for murder.
“Talk about mythical quick fixes. How exactly are we supposed to swoop in and “help a sick person?” Mental illness is a broad category, describing a “group” no more susceptible to violence than the general population.”
The issues you raise are why this is a “complex” problem. If we had broader healthcare coverage – if we had better safety nets in place to identify potentially violent mentally ill people – if public agencies were better funded and staffed – etc…. perhaps we would do a better job of identifying and helping mentally ill people of all types.
Not to mention the legal questions involved in walking a fine line betewwn protecting the public and the freedom/rights of individuals with mental illness. We would have to look at the legal standard for involuntary commitment.
As I said these are hard questions with complex solutions involving psychology, sociology, economics and the law. But in my view are worth examining.
Oh yeah – and that big elephant in the corner – let’s turn and take a look at gun control while we are at it.
Do you think that modern politicians should take pains to moderate their language?
NO.
I like hate speech. It lets me know who the nutbags are.
I just wish the nutbags could tell who the other nutbags were.
I’m going to go with Elemenope on this one. Whenever something really bad happens and they blame it on video games or rock music or something, there is a definite underlying systemic problem. This guy shot at a bunch of people because he was crazy, not because of some poster. Something in the system failed to keep him from doing that, and even if the system was near perfect, it can’t cover everyone. Stuff like this will happen every once in a while. It’s unpredictable because mentally ill – and not all mentally ill people – can have disturbing and violent thoughts, may be unsupervised, may be beyond help or refuse help, and are not surveyed on a regular basis whether they wish to do harm to themselves or others. It can only catch the people it can catch. We can say the problem is this guy was a public nutter, and nobody said his own nut-speech on the internet was cause for alarm enough to go strap him into a bed in a ward prior to the incident. I think in some sense people over-react and think everyone sounds “scary” when they are not conforming to social rules, do we lock them all up for venting their problems to nobodies on the internet who don’t care until something like this happens?
I mean, I don’t think at all it was the poster. The poster is stupid, but I don’t think it had any influence.
It isn’t just the mentally ill that have disturbing thoughts. I doubt many people haven’t had at least some thoughts that would be considered highly disturbing.
That’s true. So how do we know when to lock them up or they’re just talking?
I would say for most, there is no way of knowing until they do something. It is much easier to say disturbing things then to actually carry though with them.
Right, it’s only after someone does something that anyone goes back over what might have led up to it, anything they said or did before. Sometimes, people get a funny feeling about someone but they usually mind their own business, and most of the time, it doesn’t turn out to be any real reason to. I don’t think it’s a swell idea to start with the thought police either. People who are ill may or may not have anyone to bring them to a hospital, the only other way to assess anyone and contain them is for them to have done something illegal, for one, disturbing the peace is illegal enough for a psychological evaluation if it’s relevant.
What people want is safety, to lock up anyone who might have a disturbing past of violent thoughts. A direct threat is cause for investigation. I still think the poster had little to do with it. People like this, no matter what system you try to prevent it from happening, will surface and kill if they want to. You can’t blame stupid things like posters. Most sane people can read a poster and not act violently – we really cannot even begin to say some people might be wackos and read this too literally. Pointing guns at things is Sarah Palin’s schtick. I don’t agree with her politics, but it seems to me just something of a graphic representation of her – did she herself draw it or even come up with the concept? She is the one who is cuckoo, but she’s allowed to run for office and a lot of people think she’s great.
We have to wait until things happen or else we’ll be locking up people on thought crimes.
Sunny day– that is a GREAT point!
That’s all well and good as long as the Westboro Baptist Church kooks are very remote from me. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html?ref=fb&src=sp
Unfortunately there is no evidence yet that he acted in regard to the rhetoric of the tea party and the republicans. He read Marx and Hitler. The health care issue is touchy, too, in regards to mental health care. If you do not agree with the state, are you unbalanced? See N. Korea or Russian history. Do they lock up atheists because they do not agee with the central authority?
My wife pointed out that with health care records not being public records, there is no way to keep a psychologically impaired individual from obtaining weapons in the US. Laws will need to be changed to reduce civil rights in order to gain protection. I do think the discussion is interesting though in regard to the tea party and Sarah.
@vorjack – You forgot these:
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/demmap.jpg
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png
Oops. An this…
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-9-37-39-pm1.png
Those are pretty weak in comparison to Tea Party rhetoric. Only one of them implies any sort of violence, and that’s Obama quoting directly from “The Untouchables”. Honestly, your grasping with those.
Weakness is irrelevant – a psycho don’t need much. Duh. My point is neither side can claim credit for the violence. Obama was quoting his teleprompter. FYI: it’s “you’re grasping.” Not “your grasping.”
No, it’s relevant. Disordered thought processes exist on a continuum; it isn’t a binary of “crazy” or “not crazy”. I think a strong argument could be made that those are not nearly as dangerous as the one in the OP because the required level of derangement to extract a violent message from those is much higher, and people with that disordered a chain of thought are unlikely to be functional enough to pull off an assassination plan.
True. Also, the Dems’ imagery was not pushed forward in a cloud of violent rhetoric. The GOP’s imagery and rhetoric was accompanied by such a cloud.
By far the most eloquent comment I have seen so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw
Excellent vid from Olberman as usual.
That was great. Thanks for posting it!
Personally I thought it was a bit pompous and silly.
The problem is lack of adequate mental health care, or perhaps accessibility of guns, or perhaps even (as a stretch) partisan rancor.
The problem is not gun metaphors. Gauche rhetorical flourishes don’t kill people, people do.
One cannot draw anything but the most indirect line between the worst rhetorical excesses and violence in US politics. One *can easily* draw a direct line between declaiming rhetorical excess and calls for censorship and stifling political correctness. There is a real moment that could be used to talk about mental health care in this country, or even a non-childish discussion about gun rights and gun control, and instead it’s being wasted for cheap rhetorical and partisan political faux-righteousness.
He acknowledged “free speech” and even though his delivery was a little dramatic, I thought the content of his message was sound.
Words have power. Sure, the obnoxious right has the freedom, but they ought to be roundly condemned for their irresponsibility. Putting targets on your opponent’s back and then acting all surprised when some crazy person shoots them is ridiculous. They ought to take some damned responsibility for their message.
He made me feel like I can’t shop at Target anymore. Symbols are too dangerous! I get what you’re saying though, there’s a little feeling of censorship when xyz can’t say anything they want, but they’re all way too dramatic too. Do they listen to themselves, are they saying what they mean to say? They don’t like their “innocent” turns of phrase turned into a scapegoat… I really think they are being scapegoated, there’s no rational connection between anything they said and this particular killer. They don’t want to have to hold back, because if their mission isn’t so dramatic, people won’t be so willfully ignorant to be led to their political agenda.
I guess in a nutshell, is this the will of the people, are they running for office for what the people want or are they scaring them into wanting what they want, so they get elected. This was what the Rally to Restore Sanity was really for, wasn’t it? I do feel a climate of tense politics, an environment where people do react out of fear, but on the other hand, Loughner doesn’t seem to be in that category. Crazy assassins occur randomly and infrequently apropos of nothing that has to do with anything going on.
He acknowledged “free speech” and even though his delivery was a little dramatic, I thought the content of his message was sound.
Delivery aside, he acknowledged free speech the way that gun control advocates “acknowledge” the second amendment. The content of his message was sanctimonious; there is nothing to take responsible for (in the sense we are talking about; obviously there are subsidiary ethical issues to acting like a douche, as I mentioned earlier) since there is no reason *whatsoever* to make a causal link of any strength between the rhetoric employed and the prevalence of political violence in the US.
Rep.Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., to MSNBC in March: “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.”
That makes a good college try at *actual irony*, but besides the ability to apply a high school English class concept in real life, what is the quote supposed to demonstrate?
Don’t be coy. You are smart. You understand what the point is.
ps *hugs*
THIS is what disagreements should look like. People able to find common ground. Looking for understanding, if not agreement.
How/when did the conservatives completely loose this? They used to have it, back when I was a Republican. They used to accept me as an atheist. They used to listen when I talked about England style health care. There used to be room for pro business, capitalistic entrepreneurs like me, that had some left side ideas. They left me behind, and refused to engage. Now I’m stuck with you bunch of bleeding heart liberals, and I love you all.
Aw!
:D
*more hugs*
Don’t be coy. You are smart. You understand what the point is.
I’m not being coy, I honestly want to know. It seems like you’re making a Jesus-esque argument, here, of the form: “Oh, because she knew that she would be assassinated because her opponents were asses, thus everything she says is gospel”. Fact is, her observation about rhetoric is just as vacuous as the rest of the political commentariat who, having encountered a coincidence, strive desperately for coordinating, fulfilling meaning amidst the chaos and pain of an actual, context-piercing event; seemingly perspicacious only retroactively. How many others were targets of more extreme rhetoric and still easily breathe full, free air? All of them.
———————
How/when did the conservatives completely loose this? They used to have it, back when I was a Republican. They used to accept me as an atheist. They used to listen when I talked about England style health care. There used to be room for pro business, capitalistic entrepreneurs like me, that had some left side ideas. They left me behind, and refused to engage. Now I’m stuck with you bunch of bleeding heart liberals, and I love you all.
What happened is you were betrayed, like every other thinking conservative, by George W. Bush (the so-called “compassionate-conservative”), and then the totem of “socialist” opposition, Obama, won, driving all remaining conservatives insane with rage and pain. Or maybe that narrative is too easy; maybe the betrayal and pain extend further back to a Reagan who talks a good game but really doesn’t care about fiscal sanity. Who knows?
We read Sullivan and weep, Frum and cry. There is no home anymore for a conservative with conservative ideals. Caution is lost; there are but two choices left: between liberals who never take heed and populists who take heed only of their own imaginations.
Nope, ‘Nope!
I’m thinking of stuff like this (and, it seems, so is she):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
From my (admittedly new) understanding of the “fighting words” doctrine, the words are considered “fighting” if they would inflame a “normal” person to disturb the peace. Gifford’s office had been vandalized by (possibly? presumably? probably?) normal people. She seemed concerned about the effects of her opponents’ speech on their followers’ actions.
In other words, there are consequences for people using inflammatory/violent speech. While this guy is crazy, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to call for people to tone down their inflammatory/violent speech.
Tea Party rhetoric: If ballots don’t work, bullets will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJP9xB5Eoa0
Giffords talking about the rhetoric:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs75zKxJxVY
The Palin poster doesn’t come anywhere close to fighting words.
Once again, I’m not talking about the poster in *isolation*. It is the context in which it is placed: It is Kelley’s campaign of having his “crosshairs” of Gifford. It is “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.” It is the inflammatory speech of Limbaugh and Beck. It is “don’t retreat, reload.” It’s all the bullsh*t on Faux News.
People listen to the rhetoric– they immerse themselves in it– and they become convinced that the whole damn world is ending.
I understand that you are conservative and don’t want censorship. I don’t want that either, but at the same time I do want people to be held responsible when they use inappropriate and violent language against other people. If people are going to have free speech, then if that free speech results in the harm of another person, then the people harmed should have some kind of legal recourse (like a civil lawsuit).
If you are a politician and you use violent rhetoric against your opponent, you shouldn’t be shocked when one of your crazy followers acts that violence out. It is common sense. Period. End of story. You will never convince me otherwise.
Don’t you mean droite rhetorical flourishes?
ROFL! French is funny.
Always.
the funniest French word is “pneus”
I’ve always been partial to “l’hors d’oeuvres”. Quite possibly the largest disjunction between the scribblings on the page and the pronunciation aired.
I listened to it again. Really, any time someone is speaking this passionately on a soapbox about something, you have to listen if they’re actually saying anything. How can something he said be wrong before, but even more wrong now? Sometimes politicians, the phrases he mentioned, they sound childish, and they do sound threatening. I don’t watch this guy too much, or Fox, I don’t have cable, so unless someone passes a youtube on, I don’t really get all wrapped up in getting hell-bent on any of it. Funny he didn’t mention exactly what he’d said that was wrong, but at least he is calling for equal responsibility on both sides. There really is no reason for any politician or pseudo-journalist commentator to choose words that rely on violence to get the job done, even in metaphor. I don’t think most people are crazy enough to shoot anyone over it, they just yell real loud and sound real stupid. But a wake-up call? I’m not talking about censorship, I am in favor of people saying what they mean. They seem to be in a ghost debate whether to shoot the opponents with metaphorical guns or to set the opponents on metaphorical fire. Is this really necessary…. is all I’m asking. But MSNBC and KO are beholden to blame this on the right before the right blames the left for saying stupid shlt that gets their congresspeople shot at by crazy people.
Bottom line, he missed a good opportunity to swash all this buggedy-boo out of the way and address actual problems. Posters and impassioned speeches, it is like blaming video games and books. Hey, this guy read some books. Let’s blame the books and then burn them. No? Let’s blame Sarah Palin, because she’s an idiot, and while we’re at it, let’s use the word “repudiate” as many times as possible to drum it into her pretty little skull. If this shooter was such a grammar fanatic, why not Sarah Palin? I’m not saying we should shoot her, but that would have made more sense.
And then who would we blame? Her posters?
I’d wager that anyone placing a target on Obama’s face, and telling your gun-toting constituents that he’s in your cross-hairs, while inviting them to shoot an assault rifle would probably not be taken as innocent rhetoric.
These are some of the same hypocrites who want to restrict “violent” media (movies, games, etc.) sales and/or censor them. How ironic.
Southern Poverty Law Center came up with a possible connection to “Patriot conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller of Milwaukee” via the grammar nonsense:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/09/who-is-jared-lee-loughner/#more-5442
The article concludes: “Ideology may not explain why he allegedly killed, but it could help explain how he selected his target. One thing that seems clear is that Giffords, who was terribly wounded but survived, was the nearest and most obvious representative of “the government” that Loughner could find. Another is that he likely absorbed some of his anger from the vitriolic political atmosphere in the United States in general and Arizona in particular.”
She SURVIVED!
It’s a MIRACLE! **God wanted it!**
Take that anti abortionists! ^_^
“Do you think semi-violent language, like Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat … reload” line and other tag lines, can lead some disturbed people to take violent action?”
Yes, they can but with disturbed people (I worked for over 2 decades with seriously emotionally disturbed folks so I have some actual knowlege) that isn’t even necessary. David Berkowitz, the son of Sam killer, heard dogs talking to him.
There is one reality though of our current electoral system which uses “winner take all” districts where a narrow majority get all the representation leads inevitably to more and more polarized two party systems where the extremes swap off being in control leading inevitably to the kind of legislative hodge podge we have that rarely does anything other than repay the big supporters of each party.
I suggest reading “Fixing Elections” by Stephen Hill. He was a Gore supporter who did extensive research after the 2000 election into how the way elections are run effects the outcome. Moving from our current system to multi seat districts and to instant run off ballots for things like governors and presidents would bring more voices to the table which tends to lead to a government based on what we agree on rather than what the two furthest extremes want.
Instant run off elections would change the dialogue of the presidential elections. Rather than having a primary and a choice of one person per party this would allow all the candidates to run and for the voters to rank choices 1 through 5. If there is a majority of #1 votes for one candidate they win. If there isn’t then the statistically insignificant candidates are dropped and the ballots for them as #1 drop down to their #2 choice (or further if the #2 or #3 candidates are likewise eliminated) and the process is repeated until there is one candidate with a majority. This eliminates the “spoiler effect” of candidates like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot and actually makes it more likely for a third party or a no party candidate to have a chance to win.
The multi seat elections would similarly broaden the field. Take 5 existing congressional districts and join them together. Each voter casts a single vote but the top 5 candidates get the seats, regardless of proportion of the vote. This allows more voices at the table in congress, makes it harder for parties to control the house and eliminates much of the arm twisting as well as making it harder for career politicians to buy their seat back each election.
Would any of these end tragedies like the shooting? Sadly no, but it might make them less likely by making a less adversarial process out of our elections.
Sarah Palin should be called to task for her comments just as the comments of many democrats made about W immediately after the 2000 debacle. The strength of the parties allow these characters to carry on in such a manner. The IRV election process would make mud slinging less profitable as it might cost a candidate consideration on a given slate.
It’s true that a severely disturbed person could take a Palinwink as a suggestion to kill babies, but there’s nothing anyone can do about that.
How about the ones that aren’t QUITE that disturbed, but get funny ideas when lots of gun metaphors are thrown about in their favorite politician’s speeches?
This is true, some people could be influenced to do something horrible by some of the rhetoric. the same was true of some of the anti-W rhetoric after the 2000 coronation.
But would banning this kind of negative advertising help? By itself it wouldn’t. Negative poo flinging advertising is done by both parties for one reason – it works. To change the rhetoric we have to change the way we elect. And you should be aware that usually the worst of the poo flinging is intraparty during the primaries. Reagan’s plan was named voodoo economics not by the Carter campaign but by his future running mate, GHW Bush. On the other side of the aisle, the questions about Obama’s birth certificate were first made by the Clinton campaign and she ended up as secretary of state. This illustrates what used to be called the loyal opposition, where we fight tooth and nail during the election then pull together behind the winner. Sadly this only seems to happen within the parties not between the parties.
The Republicans flung poo because they didn’t have anything else of value to add to the discussion. I think it can be clearly said that this was not a Republican victory but rather a Democratic loss.
The same was true in 2008, the Republicans lost and were fired for not doing what their constituents wanted much more than Democrats winning, except for the white house. we may be entering a new stage in politics where the people are setting term limits at the ballot box and they may begin breaking the strangle hold of the parties on our government.
Groups like GOOOH (Get Out Of Our House) are actively calling for just such a move. The tea party began the same way but allowed themselves to be highjacked by the Republicans early on, destroying their real value for changing what is wrong with our government.
Okay my 2 cents on the whole thing, do I think the rhetoric of many on the right had something to do with this and several other incedents since Obama became the president ,unequivocally yes. Do I think that the pundits and poloticians on both sides need to watch what they say,and perhaps tone it down,definitely,especially in some settings where they speak to ‘fringe’ groups…so yes people should self edit or censor how they say things. Do we need new laws about hate speech,is the speech all on the right,no it is not. Although,this is not the first time in the last 2+ years that violence has been vaugely connected to what many on the right of our political spectrum say and do(I think there have been off the top of my head around 5-6 instances that have been conected often very tenuously to such ‘calls to arms’ from the right…not includinding things like rand paul supporters at rallies..).I am considering only events that have caused death or grievous bodily harm to some one. What this reminds me most of overall( the last 2+ years) would be the rise of various facist parties in Spain,Italy and Germany..at least historically speaking….they start with intimidation and disfranchisement, often shouting over their opponents and accusing their opponents of the tactics they themselves are using…then moves to carriying weapons and then use of aid weapons and actual deaths of opponents to further their cause. This is not to say we are definitely watching the same thing happening here, but the growth and escalation is very similar to what has happened before in many other countries. I hope I am not seeing what I fear I could be seeing, but that doesn’t change what IS happening…which happens to be a fundemental switch to demagoging and exhortations to violence mostly coming from the right as opposed to actual debates and discussions on issues and events. Which IS leading to more violence and intimidation in our country aimed at those whom do not share what is more or less the minority view of some on the right. Also those on the right,and to a lesser degree on the left, know full well that they bear some responsibility for actions taken by those that spout their creeds when they do violence to others that do not share the same views.