# This is how I see America and Arizona...



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

Reported via BBC News in the wake of the Tuscon shooting:



> Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said a consuming atmosphere of political vitriol centred on Arizona may have been a factor.
> 
> "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government; the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said.
> 
> "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.



I'm noiseboyUK so what do I know? I've visited Arizona a few times and I adore the state, breathtakingly beautiful place... I left my heart in Northern Arizona! But I despair when I read what's going on over there, obviously this shooting is as extreme example as you can get. I wanted to cheer when I heard the Sheriff say that. It's exactly how I feel.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 9, 2011)

The shooter has a major track record with the local university and police as to being mentally unbalanced and potentially violent. He was banned by the university and told to get mental help. Most of the threats against congressmen and other office holders comes from mentally unbalanced people.

When you are spraying gunfire at men, woman and children, you are obviously insane.


----------



## midphase (Jan 9, 2011)

Isn't anyone who commits violent crimes insane in one way or another? Are we excusing the behavior because he's mentally unbalanced? 

Perhaps it's time we do away with the whole "he's mentally unstable" line of thinking and realize that all criminals are mentally unstable...and there's a whole lot of mentally unstable people in the world (and growing).


----------



## rgames (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, the pundits are already busy pontificating, but Giffords' district (where I live, north Tucson) is in no way represented by what this kid had going through his head. And just because the Pima county sheriff makes a comment about vitriol and rhetroic being the cause doesn't mean it's true. (Side note, a public official interjecting personal political opinions during such an event makes my blood boil).

People who go on killing sprees like this do so for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with an actual agenda. The political discourse, however heated or vitriolic, does not "cause" people to carry out these types of acts. Look back through the history of such events - there's no rhyme or reason to it.

Don't let the (supposed) politics sidetrack the main issue: mental health. This is a kid who clearly needed some help and, due to the failure of our mental health system, wound up with nowhere to go. Dupnik (Pima County Sheriff) did get this part right in his comments.

My blood is also boiling watching the media turn this into a political circus. It is not an issue of politics or gun control. The issue that *should* be discussed is mental health. Hopefully the pundits will eventually get there...

By the way, Tucson is not a conservative city. Tucson has two Congressional districts: Giffords (North) and Grijalva (South). Both are Democrats. Both were re-elected in the last election.

And I saw the other comment about Bill Maher's award to Arizona. All I can say is that if he's your benchmark, well, you have other issues. How about we all stop and think for ourselves?

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 9, 2011)

Sadly, guys like this exist in every state in the union and in every country.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 9, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> Isn't anyone who commits violent crimes insane in one way or another? Are we excusing the behavior because he's mentally unbalanced?
> 
> Perhaps it's time we do away with the whole "he's mentally unstable" line of thinking and realize that all criminals are mentally unstable...and there's a whole lot of mentally unstable people in the world (and growing).



You can't do away with scientific fact. People have been talking about the current political climate but the fact is that we have had attempted and successful assassinations going on in this country for decades. This latest is down on a local level as opposed to the Kennedy's, Gerald Ford (former Manson cultist) Reagan (a real whacko.) These people are indeed crazy. Even Lennon's assassin is certifiable. 

We all say things like "I could shoot that guy" "or "politicians should be shot" but whatever your place in the political spectrum, if you actually want to carry it out - that's light-years away from reality.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> Well, the pundits are already busy pontificating, but Giffords' district (where I live, north Tucson) is in no way represented by what this kid had going through his head. And just because the Pima county sheriff makes a comment about vitriol and rhetroic being the cause doesn't mean it's true. (Side note, a public official interjecting personal political opinions during such an event makes my blood boil).
> 
> People who go on killing sprees like this do so for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with an actual agenda. The political discourse, however heated or vitriolic, does not "cause" people to carry out these types of acts. Look back through the history of such events - there's no rhyme or reason to it.
> 
> ...



While I agree that "Heated rhetoric" doesn't cause violence, but it does become a justification for it as represented in this case. The guy that flew his plane into an IRS building certainly used the common anti government rhetoric as Justification for his actions, though it certainly wasn't the cause. Insanity is the cause.

And, though your district might be democratic as a whole, the Northwest side tends to be a little bit more liberal and a bit more affluent than the rest of Tucson. White supremacy is so prevelent in Tucson that it works it's way into the mainstream and people don't even think twice about it. I still have horrifying memories of my 6th grade teacher, pointing at a newly arrived Jewish girl in my class and stating loudly that this girl was going to go to hell because Jews don't believe in God. I was the only kid that would talk to her after that, because me being a black Puerto Rican kid in my neighborhood I was just as much of an outcast as she was in the eyes of my school mates.

So before you sweep this under the rug and blame it all on the liberal public officials and the media trying to spin it, I suggest that you, me and other Tucsonians really take a good hard look at the kinds of atmosphere that's around the place, the kinds of things that are said around the diner table, and stop thinking that it's some kind of normal. I'm not really faulting people. It's just inbred. Hell, even one of my best friends from highschool whom I love dearly use to spout crap about an "upcoming" race war where the blacks and the mexicans and the jews were going to get together and overturn the christian white race. You know the kind of stuff people like Palin flirt with. He even took me to his church where the minister talked for an hour about the liberal politicians that are going to take away our God given right to bear arms. Horrifying stuff. btw, I grew up on the east side, which is slightly more working class and is far more reflective of Tucson as a whole than the posh Northwest. So if you hang out on the east you'll hear almost word for word things that this shooter really took to heart.


----------



## midphase (Jan 9, 2011)

I don't think you understood me Dave. What I ask is show me a "sane" killer (not including the military which is a different case).

They are all insane, but by relaxing gun laws, and throwing political and religious fuel into the frey...we are empowering them with additional justification to do what their weird brain thinks about doing (but which might not were it not for other outside factors).


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 9, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I don't think you understood me Dave. What I ask is show me a "sane" killer (not including the military which is a different case).
> They are all insane, but by relaxing gun laws, and throwing political and religious fuel into the frey...we are empowering them with additional justification to do what their weird brain thinks about doing (but which might not were it not for other outside factors).



You just made my point better than I did. The gun laws are tighter than ever. Read the exchanges between Stephen Douglas and Abe Lincoln and the writing in the press of that day. We are talking about vicious attacks on people and their character. But it goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Republic. Kennedy was shot in Dallas where some people thought he was a Communist. So who kills him? Some redneck? No, a Communist sympathizer who had already tried to kill a military guy months earlier.

The fact that this guy is totally insane negates anything to do with the political climate. What was the the climate in Jack The Rippers day? You will always have the psychotic killer. The killer will always be able to get a weapon. I wouldn't blame anybody but the killer in this case.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 9, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> IWhat I ask is show me a "sane" killer (not including the military which is a different case).
> 
> They are all insane,



Simply not true from a legal standpoint or a medical standpoint.


----------



## rgames (Jan 9, 2011)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> White supremacy is so prevelent in Tucson that it works it's way into the mainstream and people don't even think twice about it. I still have horrifying memories of my 6th grade teacher, pointing at a newly arrived Jewish girl in my class and stating loudly that this girl was going to go to hell because Jews don't believe in God.


I certainly won't deny you your experience but my experience in Tucson is totally different.

Giffords' district has an enormous Jewish population. In fact, the Jewish Community Center is enormous and well-attended by everyone in the community. It's one of the most sought-after places for child care.

Plus, Giffords, herself, is Jewish. So I don't see how her district could be painted with a white supremecist brush when its democratically elected representative is Jewish and the Jews clearly play a large role in civic activities...

I've lived in a lot of places and Tucson is definitely among the most diverse and tolerant. I already mentinoed the Jews. Of course, the hispanic population is extremely prevalent and represented in all facets of civic activity (public officials, business leaders, etc). Also, the GLBT community in Tucson is "out" a heck of a lot more than any other I've experienced. And, of course, the hippie population in Tucson is well-established.

In my three years here, I've never seen any significant example of any type of hate expressed toward any of these groups. Quite the contrary, in fact. So this notion of Tucson as an ultra-conservative, right-wing, white supremecist community is completely contrary to my experience.

I do agree with you that insanity is the cause in cases like this, so let's keep the focus on mental health.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 9, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> by relaxing gun laws, and throwing political and religious fuel into the frey...we are empowering them with additional justification to do what their weird brain thinks about doing (but which might not were it not for other outside factors).


Where can you show that to be the case? I've never seen any correlation between gun control and gun violence. DC is a classic example - there are many others.

The more important point here is that the kid clearly had mental health problems but our health system had nothing in place to help him out.

Events like this occur more often than people realize. The reason you heard about this one is that it involved so many people and one was a public figure.

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 9, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I don't think you understood me Dave. What I ask is show me a "sane" killer (not including the military which is a different case).



I get your point on this btw: you have to be nuts to set out and kill some people in a non war environment. I'm just saying that making a political football out of this imho is too far afield from the essence of it.

Bin Laden and all those guys say it's about religion and politics but those guys are just murderers at heart. Many people don't know that the FIRST World Trade Center bombing was thoroughly adjudicated in NY City. The judge concluded that the extremists had so thoroughly enjoyed killing people in the Afghan - Russian conflict that they just turned towards killing Americans when the Russians were defeated (with our help of course.) This was the actual finding of the case. Nothing to do with American foreign policy or anything but what the judge referred to as "the cult of death" the extremists belonged to.


----------



## P.T. (Jan 9, 2011)

You are all being played by the media when you try to give significance to an isolated event.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2011)

Did any of you get to watch Jared Lee Loughner's convoluted YouTube video before they took it down? If you did and thought he had any sort of coherent philosophy, I salute your amazing perspicacity and ask that you translate it for me, because as far as I could tell, the guy was a candidate for a tinfoil hat.

So far, I doubt there was any actual political motive for this tragedy. I hope and pray there isn't. We don't need that right now.

The 'public official' is a human who was obviously very upset. His statements might have been outside of his office, but in his distraught way he stated what I've been saying for years now-public debate has grown into expressions of hatred, and polarization has increased to an alarming and disheartening degree. It probably has nothing to do with this incident (other than the irretrievably stupid Palin website, since taken down), but it fits with my feelings, so I'm for people being sensitized to the issue.

Richard, I will say this- I know how you feel about a localized event that people are commenting about though having very little understanding of the locale. I felt the same way about the so many people who expressed their feelings to my wife, who was working across the street from the WTC during 9/11 and fled through body parts and saw people jumping. People really have no clue and often bumble in their expressions of-whatever.

I am no fan of many of Az's policies, but I think politicizing this event is just wrong. This is both a national and localized tragedy, and unless this kid turned out to have been used by some radical group (which at this point looks doubtful) people should stop politicizing it and try to come together in sorrow for the victims and their families.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

Please watch that - it's eerie.

What that sheriff says is absolutely right.

You can't point at Sarah Palin and blame her for this specific tragedy, but you can point at all the right-wing demagogues who are riling people up and say that what they're doing is making this kind of thing inevitable.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2011)

And by the way: yes, there really are too many f-ing guns out there.


----------



## midphase (Jan 9, 2011)

I am reprinting this post from a CNN reader which I think eloquently put exactly my thoughts. Not being lazy...I just don't think I could say it any better:




"The point is not whether the shooter was a conservative motivated by the Tea Party rhetoric or a leftist motivated by discourse from that camp - the point is that the current state of rhetoric in American politics uses imagery of violence and paints political opponents as enemies. From what is being written, the perpetrator did not have enough logic to belong to a particular political camp in any meaningful sense - he was obviously very disturbed - but it's not too much of a stretch to speculate the idea of "fighting back" might have been planted by political discourse. There is really only one interpretation of the phrase "Second Amendment solution." 

People who don't believe politically as you do are not "traitors" - they are political opponents. President Obama is not single-handedly "destroying the country" - we are suffering the effects of a global economic convulsion that began before he took office and is reverberating around the world still. Surely we can imagine how the target imagery, the "reload" call to action, the "Second Amendment solution" might lead a disturbed mind to take action against those "destroying" the country. We have to "take back our country from the traitors", right? (not vote against them in the next election because we don't agree with their policies). "


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2011)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opini ... an.html?hp


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4
> 
> Please watch that - it's eerie.
> 
> ...



People on the fringe of sanity don't need much of a push, and you can't really make the case that rhetoric of any sort cause this, at least not yet.

As to the video-you're right. Eerie, and sad.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2011)

"It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate." P. Krugman

This is flawed logic. Why not? Why shouldn't it be treated as an isolated event because the kid was deranged?

Until the facts about this killer emerge, Krugman is talking out of his ass. He's taking a bunch of oranges and making applesauce out of them. This is EXACTLY the way I wish this wouldn't go.

Additionally, 'civility', which he derides as the pundits easy out is exactly what's needed. It is the first building block to less screaming and more mutual tolerance, and it seems Congress agrees with me in that regard, if you read recent statements from both parties.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 9, 2011)

I don't think he's talking out of his ass at all, much as I'd like to believe he is. It doesn't seem like a coincidence.

Did you see this?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

Here's why I think it's way too easy to pin the blame for this shooting on lone nutter, and end the debate. The reason why the Sherrif's words chime with so many is that there is a direct logical connection between the shooting and the rhetoric. Sarah Palin - who, let's remind ourselves, wants to be President of the United States God help us all - had the state of Arizona depicted within gun-sight crosshairs with the slogan "20 House Democrats from districts we carried in 2008 voted for the health care bill - IT'S TIME TO TAKE AS STAND". Giffords had already said publically that such rhetoric is dangerous and can have consequences, that it has reached an unprecedented level. Then she is shot at point blank range.

There is such a crystal clear logical thread to that sequence of events, even if it wasn't the actual catalyst, that it is - at best - horrifically distateful. It illustruates that the logical outcome of the current standard of political debate is murder. It makes literal what is only intented - we hope - to be metaphorical. And in so doing, it exposes the political debate for the nasty, bigoted, vile, putrid shit that it really is. Palin's idiocy is a long way from isolated, Obama is constantly portrayed as a criminal and criminals need dealing with, right?

There are bigger implications to what has happened. The fact that some can't see it is, imho, pretty disturbing - already this inescapable logic (and dear God yes watch that eerie youtube video of the victim talking basic common sense and decency) is being portrayed as yet another liberal plot. Maybe it's easier to see from the distance of 3,000 miles, but American debate is desperately sick, and it needs to change.


----------



## midphase (Jan 10, 2011)

"It happens all the time - people with mental health issues are identified but are not handled like they were 50 years ago. They used to be taken care of but nowadays they just roam the streets. Well, this is what you get. And we've gotten it multiple times in the past. "


Hmmm...isn't this the result of conservatives cutbacks of social services? And aren't you effectively making an argument for single payer socialized health care?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 10, 2011)

Richard - if you can't see that this sequence of events:

1. Presidential candidate puts gun crosshairs on Congresswoman's district and asks public to take action

2. Congresswoman says such violent rhetoric may have "consequences"

3. Congresswoman gets shot in the head

Might juuust be related to each other, then I'm not sure what to say.

Yes this guy is unbalanced, but how does this help your case? According to the UK's NHS, 1 in 4 people experience mental health issues in their lives. So... quick maths... that's only 50 million Americans we need to worry about with free and easy access to guns who may be susceptible to suggestion in a highly emotive atmosphere. That's an awful lot of institutions to lock people safely away in.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 10, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Richard - if you can't see that this sequence of events:
> 
> 1. Presidential candidate puts gun crosshairs on Congresswoman's district and asks public to take action
> 
> ...



And might very well not. Where is your evidence that it is?

Why is it people use their ideologies to see what they want to see? Perhaps it will come out that this deranged boy's motives were political and his actions were fueled by conservative rhetoric, but I've seen no evidence of that so far. Where's yours, and if you don't have any, why make a non-factual case to that end?

I believe very strongly in lowering the heat and the tone of political and entertainment-based 'news media' rhetoric, but you know what? It needs to be across the board, and making assertions based on which side you've taken will only lead to more of the same.

Btw, as long as you're answering Richard, why don't you actually answer the point he made? Lots of nuts, very little cogent motivation is what I believe he's saying. I agree. You don't?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 10, 2011)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/g ... tml?hpt=C2


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 10, 2011)

the whole deal is terrible when you have to see the father of a 9 year old daughter on tv. the thing is reminiscent of a film i once saw called the parallax view.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 10, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> And might very well not. Where is your evidence that it is?



It's not the point the point I'm making at all, as I tried to make clear in my earlier posts. The point is that this is a logical outcome given the atrocious standard of political debate, and the simple fact that there are literally millions of mentally unstable people with access to guns. That's why it's suddenly a flashpoint - the connection between inciting hatred, widespread gun availability and people with mental health issues is blindingly obvious. Whether or not this particular case is an obvious cause and effect isn't the issue that this has thrown up, the issue is that these incidents are more likely given those conditions. On the issue of gun-ownership alone, it stands to reason that this would be FAR less likely to have happened if gun-ownership was not a God-given right.



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Why is it people use their ideologies to see what they want to see?



Er... and that doesn't apply to the right wing who say there's no possibility of any issue there? That we must close down debate on vitriolic, hateful political rhetoric and gun ownership? I totally agree with you.



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Perhaps it will come out that this deranged boy's motives were political and his actions were fueled by conservative rhetoric, but I've seen no evidence of that so far. Where's yours, and if you don't have any, why make a non-factual case to that end?



Already answered.



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> I believe very strongly in lowering the heat and the tone of political and entertainment-based 'news media' rhetoric, but you know what? It needs to be across the board, and making assertions based on which side you've taken will only lead to more of the same.



Again, you're misrepresenting the argument. The assertation being made is that this kind of event is more likely given current conditions. 



NYC Composer @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Btw, as long as you're answering Richard, why don't you actually answer the point he made? Lots of nuts, very little cogent motivation is what I believe he's saying. I agree. You don't?



It's a straw man. Of course there are lots of nuts and lots of causes... and? Does this make the perpetrators of 9/11 all lone nutjobs so Al Qaida is therefore a benign organisation? (and before anyone misrepresents that argument, I'm not saying that this person was part of an organistion, I'm saying that people are influenced by others, hardly a brilliant observation I'll admit). There are insane people, insane organisations, insane movements and insane politcial debate. Sometimes some of these things overlap. I'm all for less insanity in the world all round.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 10, 2011)

This is a tragedy, but the reality in Arizona is that many criminals from Mexico hide amongst the decent Mexicans that come there seeking work that isn't available in Mexico. Since the DC machine uses this to add divisions instead of solutions Arizonans have armed themselves. 

I worked the Scottsdale resorts in '84 before I ended up in Vegas, and I did a gig once in Apache Junction where you checked your firearms in to the Bartender, and everyone had their own pool cues and gun racks.
I felt safe, but felt like Geronimo was still alive.

Free emergency medical services is where everyone goes when they get sick that dont have insurance. But there's no such service available for the mentally ill millions that walk among us.
He obviously couldn't pass a drug scan, yet he had money for dope and weapons, but no place for treatment...?
That's what scares me. And the fact we have millions of imbalanced people like this living amongst us is alarming.

My heart goes out to the families of the dead and wounded.
And any politician I hear using this for some political gain I will personally write and tell them to stand a post in Nogales/Douglass, or shut their traps and show respect for all involved.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 10, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 10 said:
> 
> 
> > You can't point at Sarah Palin and blame her for this specific tragedy, but you can point at all the right-wing demagogues who are riling people up and say that what they're doing is making this kind of thing inevitable.
> ...



Richard you're arguing a losing argument.

I ask that you step out of the 5 mile northwest haven that you live in in Tucson and head over to inquire about purchasing a gun on the southeast side of Tucson. I swear to you, in about 2 minutes you'll hear almost the exact same talk that the shooter is spouting off on Youtube. It's the fear that they use to arm the populace of Tucson, AZ. Fear of the Feds, fear of the immigrant, fear of everything. It got better for a little while, but that fear is back with a vengeance in Tucson. Not saying it's the only reason people commit politically motivated acts of terror, but it's a contributing cause. Fear, something that the right wing openly admitted that they were going to do. They started a deliberate fear campaign in order to gain power again. And, it's a shocker that people like Palin, McCain and Glenn Beck are actually shocked that something like this happened. What did they expect was going to happen? We don't live in a sane society. If you scare people some of us are going to react violently.


----------



## midphase (Jan 10, 2011)

"And any politician I hear using this for some political gain I will personally write and tell them to stand a post in Nogales/Douglass, or shut their traps and show respect for all involved."

But why is it bad if we use this as a way to implement new ways in which to make sure things like these don't happen again (or as easily)?

Is that political gain? 

I'm all for politicians using this to limit gun access to just about anyone (especially mentally unstable people), added security at public political events (although I'm not sure that would have helped in this case), and most importantly adding support to public health care, especially for mental help.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 10, 2011)

I have used firearms since I was a boy. I love the outdoors and wild game, and I can use these for protection at home using some custom loads meant to disable intruders.
But having handguns concealed or assault rifles is a personal choice, and IMHO a dangerous one that should be better regulated.

We have intelligent leaders that consistently make poor choices for political reasons, whether its based on NRA donations or some silly fool like Rosie O'Donell blabbing on about assault weapons and handgun Bans, when her own bodyguards all carry concealed weapons...

These types of law need common sense approaches. not politaclly motivated ones.
Being an avid hunter, I am considered a red neck gun toting by the blabbering folks who seek higher office or exposure, yet I am totally for banning concealed weapons and all assault rifles.

Once again, we see how money gets into every nook and cranny of our political system and poisons it outcome.

FWIW, if someone is scared of the Feds coming to get them, a silly M16 won't stop them unless you have armor piercing rounds.
When your time is up, thats it. No assault rifle will save you. But yet a disgruntled person with an assault rifle can kill dozens of people......
This is just irresponsible and sick.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 10, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> FWIW, if someone is scared of the Feds coming to get them, a silly M16 won't stop them unless you have armor piercing rounds.
> When your time is up, thats it. No assault rifle will save you. But yet a disgruntled person with an assault rifle can kill dozens of people......
> This is just irresponsible and sick.



Funny. I knew so many guys in Tucson that use to use the same excuse. Use to have weapons in case of "An oppressive government". I use to live close to the Airforce base in Tucson. I told one guy that if the government wanted to use force to be oppressive his little 9mil Glock wasn't going to stop the f15's flying over head. He didn't like that reality too much.

The irony is that people like him and so many others in Tucson have a fear and resentment of the Feds. Well now the FBI is going to be all up their asses investigating every little PTA group in Tucson for suspected terrorist. The cruel irony of it all.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 10, 2011)

I figure if the Feds get past my Claymores and my Mace spraying pop up sprinklers, my times' up.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> The idea that anyone is going to stop someone like FKA Blackwater with their own guns is beyond laughable.
> 
> While I don't stay up nights worrying about them taking over the government, they are the most credible threat - not a standing army with muskets.



Now known as Xe.

Reading the book about Blackwater was a dread-inspiring experience, but more from a moralistic point of view-guys o send in to do the work you're not legally or morally allowed to do according to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct or the Geneva Convention. Grand. I don't see them taking over the government. When all's said and done, they have what they want-huge revenues as a paramilitary organization.

I never said anything occurs in a vacuum. What I've said is that leaping to the conclusion that _this incident_ was a result of heated political rhetoric is a leap based on ideology, not facts. If you have facts, lay them out. Prove your theory. Otherwise, you're simply opining. I'm open to facts. If it comes out this kid was politically moved by right wing rhetoric and the case can be made factually, I'm on board. I've said repeatedly how horrific I find the tenor of political debate and characterizations that presently exist in America, but until a direct connection is made _in this instance_, these are two separate discussions: 1. What happened here. 2. What is happening in America.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 10, 2011)

While ultimately the person who lights the match that starts a fire is responsible, there is certainly some responsibility to be assigned to those who carelessly pour gasoline onto flammable objects.

While it does not seem to pertain to this _particular_ incident. it is behavior that we need to be vocal in opposing, whether from the left or the right.


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 10, 2011)

A tragic day for the victims, Arizona and all of America. I lived in AZ for four years (transplanted from Vancouver, Canada) and seeing a dude in a Subway restaraunt with a gun in a holster was a new, unnerving, experience for a gentle Canadian.

But, 99% of the people I met in Arizona were nice, hard working people. I think this tragedy could have happened in any other state in the union just as easily. I'm not sure someone wouldn't being saying "California is a nut house" if it had happened there. And it does, everywhere.

There seems to be something ailing America these days and I wonder if it isn't directly linked to the media. When a culture elevates people like Paris Hilton, all of the reality show trainwrecks, etc, to superstar status it sends the wrong message. The american dream was a small house, food on the table, a good simple life and hopefully a few bucks left over for retirement. Now it's show your junk on TV and we'll all help you through rehab. 

America needs to get back to sensible times. Work hard, put money away, respect your fellow people and be accountable for your actions. There will always be people that are unstable and America certainly has it's share but, to be honest, it's not like the entire rest of the world is "firing on all cylinders" these days and we're the class f&ckups. Years ago it was Walter Cronkite telling you what happened (for about 1/2 an hour on TV), no opinion, just the fatcs. Now it's 24 hours of "scare the sh%t out of you", and then "consume you motherf&ckers" during the commercials. Turn it all off. Write some music. Don't stick you head in the sand but just spend less time worrying and more time living.

2 cents,

Darren


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 10, 2011)

Has everyone here heard the reports about this guy? He had an entire classroom in fear of their lives including the teacher! That was a huge systemic failure! This incoherent psycho was a timebomb waiting to go off and a lot of people knew it.

Whether he was fixated on Jodie Foster, John Lennon or his local congresswoman is not the issue. This type of thing happens. 

Sure the Democratic committee that put out those bulls-eye's of Republicans calling them "Targets" and Sarah Palin's infamous crosshairs should stop that kind of thing but did it make you want to go kill someone?

What did everyone attribute that guy killing all those military people in Texas too? The political climate? It wasn't and obviously so.


----------



## rgames (Jan 10, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> While it does not seem to pertain to this _particular_ incident


If it does not pertain to this _particular_ incident then why raise the issue in respone to this _particular_ incident? Why not raise some other issue?

Like, let's see... global warming. Yes - the killer was influenced by global warming. After all, the earth is warming, right? And he's on the earth, and heat has an effect on chemistry, and brain chemistry affects mental fuction. All of these statements are facts, and there is a potential link, so it must be a reasonable explanation.

Or no - must have been the World Series. Giants won the world series, and this kid shot a bunch of people. Yes, that's it. Go ahead: argue that the Giants didn't win the world series. And argue that this kid didn't shoot a bunch of people. You can't, can you? Well, Giffords was a strong supporter of gay rights, and San Francisco has a strong link to the gay community. So when the Giants won, he was reminded how much he dislikes gays, so he lashed out against Giffords. Again, there is a possible link there, so they must be related, right?

There's just as much merit in those arguments as in yours: none.

Sure, there's heated rhetoric (check yourself on that one, Nick B). And most of it is pointless partisan politics. And yes, it is logical that it *could* be a factor in a case like this. But where is there any indication that it actually is? Where?

Just because it is *possible* doesn't mean that it is *factual*. And, as elucidated by my previous posts, the explanation you guys keep harping on is not even *probable*. So why keep coming back to it?

By continuing this line of discussion you guys are falling into the very trap that generates the purile banter that, supposedly, everyone is complaining about. Rather than stopping and thinking for yourselves, you're devouring the crap that the media are spoon-feeding you and exacerbating the problem.

Pick your side. Attack the other. Meanwhile, our society falls hopelessly into the dumpster because people choose to engage in childish tit-for-tat rather than addressing issues of actual substance.

Keep at it, guys. Good luck...

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jan 10, 2011)

The systemic failure comes from the government not providing any way for most of these people to get help.

Trust me on this one, I know a person who is desperately trying to get mental help (unemployed and extremely depressed) and who doesn't know where to turn that doesn't require a heavy financial burden.

Meanwhile, all that conservatives can focus on is reducing spending, at the expense of any of the minute social programs designed to help these people. 

Don't believe me? Here's one of many examples, this one happening in our own state:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/07/2873170/budget-cuts-expose-mentally-ill.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/07/287317 ... y-ill.html)


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 10, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> The systemic failure comes from the government not providing any way for most of these people to get help.
> 
> Trust me on this one, I know a person who is desperately trying to get mental help (unemployed and extremely depressed) and who doesn't know where to turn that doesn't require a heavy financial burden.
> 
> ...



Kays,

Where does the government get the money to help this person? We're in debt past our eyeballs. Will Pelosi give up her new 18k a month office? Her back and forth flights to DC in her personal plane? Unless people like her in our government give up stuff like this the only way to help someone like the person you know is to raise taxes. So that means guys like you and I are giving up more money. I'm OK with giving more, I really am. I am not OK with giving it to anybody in any recent US government as they have proven time and again that they can't spend it wisely. Social Security makes sense but the government didn't set up a specific fund for it. They just lumped it in with all of the other cash. Now a lot of people that have paid into it may not get it back... 

The reality is we are not really entitled to anything on this planet, health care, food, a friendly neighbor, etc. Some people are dealt a crap deal and others make out like bandits.

Respectfully...


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 10, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> The systemic failure comes from the government not providing any way for most of these people to get help.
> 
> Trust me on this one, I know a person who is desperately trying to get mental help (unemployed and extremely depressed) and who doesn't know where to turn that doesn't require a heavy financial burden.



Well this is exactly why we have needed health care reform as well as laws regarding access to weapons and education regarding mental illness. There needs to be a protocol for addressing people with this need. 

Good heavens the university kicked the guy out and the local police delivered the restriction personally to the kid. Right there they should have had him evaluated and put him into the system as unable to purchase firearms etc.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 10, 2011)

Just a little frightening.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/11/us/11loughner_75.html


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Just a little frightening.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/01/11/us/11loughner_75.html


They didn't list the planet he's from. What's up with that?


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 10, 2011)

If this sounds overly sensistive I apologise, as I believe everybody is suffering, but can you imagine if this was your kid...?
You didn't want him to hate you or do anything brash, so you let him slide on the smell of weed which surely was permeating the house. 
Then you put up with odd behavior because you were unsure of his direction, so the whole time you were contemplating probably getting him some help, and then all of a sudden this happens.

I would be out of my skin, but then again, I have always been in my sons shadow, wanting his friends names, and where he goes, stay awake hoping he never does drugs from peer pressure.....................and guess what.?

I packed my beak like a mad man in the '80's and dropped acid at concerts, etc.
I chugged so much Jager I should be dead.
So who am I to even pass judgement.............
Well a very nervous father I guess.

Those shoot 'em games I keep buying for Chimuelo Jr. have me a little edgy right now.
I can hear the shots as I type.
Screw it, I'll go drop another Oxy....

Keeping the kids on insurance until they are 26 is the best idea I ever heard from Congress.
If they are in Sports in College this is really helpful, and if the kid has a few loose screws surely Mom and Dad should know by the time they are 26........


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Jan 10 said:
> 
> 
> > While it does not seem to pertain to this _particular_ incident
> ...



Funny...I think I said all that, but in a less heated way. Maybe you also need to check yourself, Richard? You sound gosh darn angry.....in sort of a partisan way.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 11, 2011)

Dave Connor @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Sure the Democratic committee that put out those bulls-eye's of Republicans calling them "Targets" and Sarah Palin's infamous crosshairs should stop that kind of thing but did it make you want to go kill someone?
> 
> [/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed (Jan 11, 2011)

If Sarah Palin didn't think she might be responsible in some way she would have stood by her tweets and comments and that graphic of the states in cross-hairs. 

Instead she deletes it without telling anyone and runs away from the issue.

To me it would have been much better if she had just admitted she was wrong to write those things and will make sure she chooses her words and actions more carefully next time and suggests other politicians do the same. That's the problem with this whole issue to me.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 11, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Jan 10 said:
> 
> 
> > While it does not seem to pertain to this _particular_ incident
> ...



Because someone else already raised it and the in the bigger picture, it is important, perhaps more important, than what happened in this one tragedy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2011)

The fear and hate-mongering that is surely going to lead to more violence is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. And those racist morons in Arizona are creating the perfect environment for it. So are the 24/7 liars on right-wing hate radio and TV, along with the gun nuts who force ridiculous laws that allow a sick person like this to go out and arm himself to the teeth. 

The country will become unlivable if this continues. Resonsibility is necessary for a free society, and riling people up to make money is not responsible. 

That's my real answer to Richard's reductio ad absurdum argument. And it doesn't depend on this asshole's politics.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> The fear and hate-mongering that is surely going to lead to more violence is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. And those racist morons in Arizona are creating the perfect environment for it. So are the 24/7 liars on right-wing hate radio and TV, along with the gun nuts who force ridiculous laws that allow a sick person like this to go out and arm himself to the teeth.
> 
> The country will become unlivable if this continues. Resonsibility is necessary for a free society, and riling people up to make money is not responsible.
> 
> That's my real answer to Richard's reductio ad absurdum argument. And it doesn't depend on this asshole's politics.



Nick, you know that I agree with you in principle. Regarding this specific incident though, I don't see how you get from here to there.

Please answer just one question with a yes or no: do you have any direct evidence that this deranged killer was influenced by right wing rhetoric? If your answer is no, then aren't you simply using this tragedy as an opportunity to state your broader views?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't think you're getting what a lot of us here are saying Larry. Direct cause and effect in this case isn't the whole story. Because the whole world can so clearly see a logical chain of events from unbalanced, hateful, hysterical pronouncements to unbalanced, hateful, hysterical actions LIKE this, it's had the effect of exposing just how pathalogical normal discourse has become in America.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2011)

Larry, my answers are No but that's not the relevant point, and Yes but that's not the way I look at it. 

There are thousands of nuts like this who could go off the cliff. It's important to learn the right lessons from tragedies. Jim Brady has been doing that since the '80s.

What nbuk says is also true, though.


----------



## rgames (Jan 11, 2011)

Yes, Larry, I am angry. So are most folks here in Tucson. I don't see what's partisan about my expression of anger, though.

The national media has turned this into a circus and is trying to pin it on people in Arizona. How would you feel if the national media had implied that New Yorkers were to blame for the attacks on the World Trade Center?

Sure, there are extremists in Arizona, and in Tucson. But they have no significant representation in the community - not even close. Everyone keeps painting Tucson with a conservative extremist brush. Not only is that not true, the truth is actually quite the opposite. Giffords is a democrat for crying out loud, re-elected for a third term. Tucson's other congressional district is also represented by a democrat. If Tucson is so conservative and extremist, how does it elect not one but two mainstream democratic representatives?

There are two issues here:

1. Does political ideology have anything to do with this tragedy? All indications are that it does not, but the press keeps coming back to it.

2. Does Arizona/Tucson foster people with ideologies that support these types of actions? Again, the answer is no, but the press also keeps coming back to that point.

So, yes, I'm angry. But, at least for now, I feel justified in my anger.

I'm not angry at anyone for having a particular ideology. I'm angry that people are taking this media bullshit without stopping to think about it. And I care deeply because it reflects directly back on me and my community.

If you show me a thoughtful analysis that shows how this event, or any of the others I identified, can be blamed on conservative ideology and/or Tucson, then I'll gladly listen. But all I've seen so far are blanket statements of "it's possible, so it must be fact".

I've said it several times already: the issue that should be discussed is mental health. But it's a lot more fun to attack conservatives, so the debate keeps going there.

Go ahead and cut back on the politically charged debate. Sure. I'm all for that. But it's not going to prevent events like this one. And you can tighten gun control laws. I'm all for that also (never had a gun and never intend to own one). Again, it'll have no impact on these types of events.

Or, we can all focus on mental health issues and actually make a difference in our society.

My anger also stems partly from the fact that we're wasting energy and political capital on topics that will in no way prevent this type of thing from happening again.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2011)

Richard-that's the thing about anger-_everyone_ feels justified in it. Righteous anger-what could possibly feel better? The zeal, the indignation-sweet.

If the virulent anger and hostility cannot be removed from the national debate, things WILL get worse.

As to your points, I am a decided liberal and if you notice, I took your part in this discussion because I believe this is an event that should not be politicized. I did not rail. I did not decry. I just made my point without rancor. It is where more of us need to go.
I beieve this with all of my heart. I think people need to calm the fuck down.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> I don't think you're getting what a lot of us here are saying Larry. Direct cause and effect in this case isn't the whole story. Because the whole world can so clearly see a logical chain of events from unbalanced, hateful, hysterical pronouncements to unbalanced, hateful, hysterical actions LIKE this, it's had the effect of exposing just how pathalogical normal discourse has become in America.



Noise, I not only get it, but I agree with you. Where we diverge is in this- you didn't bring up this issue in a thread before Jared Lee Loughner performed his swansong. To say that you're not suggesting direct cause and effect is either disingenuous or blindly ideological.

I have been fighting the good fight for civility in discourse ON THIS FORUM, for God's sake. It's patently obvious where I stand on this issue, but I repeat-you do not take a bunch of oranges , mash them together and make applesauce. Now, if it turns out those oranges were actually apples, it's another matter. So far, they're still oranges and the overheated dangerous rhetoric in American politics and the crime of Jared Lee Loughner are two separate issues, imo.

I think you're a very civil dude, Noise. I enjoy your thoughtful posts and your urbanity-but please. Suggesting "I don't get it" is patronizing. I get it. I don't agree.


----------



## rgames (Jan 11, 2011)

The difference is, as I said, that I'm not angry at conservatives or liberals. I'm not angry with anyone's beliefs or political orientation. Nowhere have I said "those right-wing idiots" or "those left-wing idiots" or used any type of language that berates either end of the political spectrum.

My position on this really has no bearing on the debate because I'm essentially outside of it. I don't care about conservative talk radio - I've never listened to it. I don't care about gun control - I don't have a gun. And I don't think either one of those issues has any effect on eventò    0¿Q    0Á<    0Â†    0Äû    0ÅÏ    0È6    0È^    0Ê²    0ËT    0Ï8    0Ðì    0Ñ    0Ñw    0Ô¥    0Ôê    0Ôí    0Õ7    0×3    0×    0Ùµ    0Ùã    0â¡    0â»    0ã²    0ã¸    0çË    0çñ    0èG    0è}    0è    0è¹    0èÿ    0é#    0ï¢    0ïç    0õo    0õ±    0öÄ    0öé    0øÐ    0øá    0


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2011)

Believe it or not, Richard, you are not the kind of crazy nut I'm concerned about.



> Does political ideology have anything to do with this tragedy? All indications are that it does not, but the press keeps coming back to it.
> 
> 2. Does Arizona/Tucson foster people with ideologies that support these types of actions? Again, the answer is no, but the press also keeps coming back to that point.




Again: the reason political ideology has to do with this debate is that the atmosphere is being poisoned by the extreme right these days and not by the left. That wasn't always the case, but today we have an infestation of shrieking demagogues using hate and fear in tough times (for money and political gain, by the way - not that the two are separate).

The answer to your second question is absolutely yes. You have a bunch of racist idiots in your state enacting discriminatory legislation as a way of misdirecting anger during a bad economy. Obama's a Muslim born in Kenya, liberal elitists, socialists, immigrants, big government....it's all the same detestable stuff.

The atmosphere is real, and pretending it doesn't exist is putting your head in the sand.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> Regardless of the specifics, if this causes people to take stock and tone down the heat and vitriol, this is a good thing, surely to be welcomed by right-thinking people on ALL sides of the political spectrum.



Imo, the more this event is politicized, the less likely it is that any comity will be achieved.

If you're going to continue to present your opinion in the same way, I guess I'll answer in the same way:

You have no evidence to suggest that this singular incident has anything to do with anything but insanity, however, you have taken your p.o.v and applied it to this event.

The more the left politicizes this, the more it looks to me like "we have found an issue to make capital of"....although there is nothing (thus far) to suggest there is any correlation.

I'm curious, and this is not meant to imply anything, but Noise, have you ever lived here for any period of time?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 11, 2011)

> It's a long stretch to say that just because there are extreme views out there that it is a factor in driving people to violence.
> 
> That's the gap you still haven't filled.



It's happened many times throughout history.

I've said it again and I'll say it before: times get tough and people lash out at scapegoats when they're riled up and their anger is misdirected. Fortunately the conditions today aren't anywhere near as bad as they were during the Weimar Republic, but on a very small scale the psychology is identical.


----------



## midphase (Jan 11, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jan 11 said:
> 
> 
> > the atmosphere is being poisoned by the extreme right these days and not by the left.
> ...



Richard,

You say you have not listened to right-wing talk radio of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck...but perhaps you should start to have a better idea of how slanted towards the right this hate speech has become.

Show me a single Democrat pundit who is in the public eye (i.e. not some obscure blogger) who has used double entendre to imply taking up guns or violence? Now show me a single Republican (Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin instantly come to mind, and they both speak to millions).

The correlation between hate speech and what happened in Tucson is obvious if you look at it this context: It creates a justification for violence that an insane individual can latch onto in order to organize and justify his own actions. This is why people bomb abortion clinics, or try to assassinate leaders. Religion or politics gives them a focus which allows them to funnel their violent (and crazy) instincts through. This incident didn't happen at some random fast food joint, this guy wasn't a disgruntled employee who had just been fired. 

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think that all the hate speech and not-so-subtle calls to violence got to this guy who was already tethering on the edge of insanity.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Larry - I think that proves that you're not getting what we're saying! We've all answered your question many many times, but because our answer isn't "we know he is politically motived" (and additionally WHY it's relevant that it is discussed) you merely consider it political posturing, which is again failing to understand what we're saying imho. It's not Political with a capital P to care about gun crime and hateful rhetoric and the consequences therein.
> 
> I've never lived in the US. Interestingly my sister has for 30 years now, adored the US but is planning to move back to the UK in retirement. She works in education in NYC, and believes both political debate and the standard of social care is now so dire in the US she wants out. Honestly, that's the reason.



Noise-once you start with 'we', the game of logical discourse is lost. You're now a partisan.

Also, you (all of "you", apparently  haven't '"answered a question". You've made a statement, staked out a position, and i disagree.

But that's okay. People can disagree. There's much we actually agree about. The trick to finding comity is often in the tone and the willingness to see things from the other fellow's p.o.v. I see yours. I find it illogical, the connection you've made here, and I disagree, but I don't hold ypu in any lower esteem as a result.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

Cool beanz Larry, sounds good to me.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

This is a well argued Guardian op ed piece that puts it into context very well for me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -shootings


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> Larry - I think that proves that you're not getting what we're saying! She works in education in NYC, and believes both political debate and the standard of social care is now so dire in the US she wants out. Honestly, that's the reason.



i think Larry gets exactly what you're saying. and that example of your sister is a classic. imagine if all expats did that and a lot do and then work out what the state of your country will become and in fact has become. and also take a look at the incident in cumbria a couple months ago when that taxi driver killed 10 or so people with a gun. and then the next one in newcastle. and then think about the uk and if it had the same gun laws bill of rights and amendments as in the US. they would be shootings in the uk all the time make no mistake about that.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

Er, I don't think you're getting my sister's position at all. she's been planning to move back for a long time. In her case it's a pervasive culture thing, not a response to a one-off. The Guardian article makes the point well within this context.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Er, I don't think you're getting my sister's position at all. she's been planning to move back for a long time. In her case it's a pervasive culture thing, not a response to a one-off. The Guardian article makes the point well within this context.



crap. what the fuck does the guardian know about the US. in fact what does the guardian know about anything. give me a fucking break dude. you don't know anything about the US. i get your sisters position. she pays US taxes and then gets the uk taxpayer to bail her out in her dotage right? BS.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

In the course of this discussion, I have realized that I'm even more interested in the ultimate aim of discussion and debate than in the issue itself.

Of late, I have undergone a radical shift in my thinking. I have moved from trying to "win" each discussion/debate/argument to trying to understand the point of view of the person or persons I'm having the discussion with, and then trying to find common ground. Theoretically, this would be the goal of any successful negotiation, where everyone gives up something and gains something simultaneously. This theory strikes me as the raison d'etre for diplomacy and the ultimate end for politics.

The hard part is getting people to buy into this. Give something, get something. It really is worthwhile. It's both a win/win and a lose/lose, and it's closer to the reality of how things could actually work than some people care to admit. For example:

If you look at poverty or crime you can always find causes that will give you a clue how people fell into these states. For some people, the preconditions will matter more, for some less. No one really has the moral high ground to suggest how someone else should feel about these issues or exactly how much the cause and effect should matter to them when they are, say, victims of a crime, but any good discussion of these matters will usually bear fruit in achieving SOME amount of common ground in empathy on a few different levels (i.e victims rights vs.the rights to an equal playing field from birth). I've had a lot of these discussions that bore fruit.

There are some people whose minds are completely closed. They have decided the right of most matters in advance. You will probably never reach them. However, on the base level, if you have any chance whatsoever, your odds are greatly diminished by calling them "idiots" (© N.B. :wink: ). Any opportunity to break through to a closed mind starts with the tenor of your speech and the tone of your rhetoric.

To my way of thinking, we had better start tacking in this direction, and it's not just conservatives who need to change their ways of thought and expression-it's us too, yes _you_, Mister Smug Moral High Ground New York Times Liberal Eastern Elitist! (ok, Nick, that really WASN'T about you, everyone knows you live in Ca!)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

George's post, and Larry's post.

Compare and contrast.


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Show me a single Democrat pundit who is in the public eye (i.e. not some obscure blogger) who has used double entendre to imply taking up guns or violence?


How about Obama's "If they bring knives we'll bring guns"? Is he in the public eye enough for you? And Giffords hereself made several references to being a good shot in direct response to attacks from the right. That type of speech is not exclusive to the right - it's metaphor used by many.

Furthermore, speech that incites violence is against the law. If there's so much of it, why don't we see any lawsuits? Would you really have me believe that the left would pass up opportunities to bring legal action against right-wing zealots? I sreiously doubt it.

But, again, I don't want to argue that point. It doesn't matter.



> The correlation between hate speech and what happened in Tucson is obvious


Again, it's not. Show me the connection - show me where in the shooter's deranged ramblings is evidence of a connection. You keep saying the connection is obvious without saying what the connection is. If it's so obvious then you should be able to point us all to something that clearly elucidates the connection.

Also, go through the list of similar incidents I gave and show how right-wing hate speech had anything to do with those incidents. You have many examples in front of you; if it's so obvious you should be able to make the connections and have us all convinced in the space of a paragraph or two.

There is one thing that *is* common to all of these incidents and *is* obviously related: failure of the public mental healtò    a2     a:!    a:F    aYH    aY    ay‰ 


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Larry, in case you haven't noticed, I have a low frustration tolerance level. That and the arrogance of not suffering fools gladly is quite a combination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nick-

I must admit-I've noticed that an urbane demeanor is not your strong suit :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2011)

That's probably less true than you might think. You can't see my demeanor in writing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Classic point-you're right!

( don't you just love those last two lil words?)


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I seriously believe it will greatly reduce the potential number of them. And we still can improve the mental health system as well. The two are symbiotic, not antithetical.


I disagree with your first statement, and the long list of examples I gave seems to make that point pretty well. The list is there - if somebody wants to explain the linkages I'm more than happy to consider it.

I agree with the rest of your statement. But here's the question: is the attention appropriately distributed right now? We're basically 100% focused on rhetoric and 0% focused on mental helth. Do you think that's the right balance?

Larry, I've already capitulated the point that there's more hate speech coming from the right. I don't actually know, and I can't think of how we would measure that, but fine. I accepted that presumption. So sure, tone down the rhetoric. I'm all for that. Again, though, I seriously doubt it's going to do anything to address the issue at hand.

What *clearly* will address the issue at hand, and the long list of others I provided, is a better public mental health system.

How anybody can argue that it makes more sense to keep the focus on Rush Limbaugh or anyone else is beyond my ability to comprehend. Unless, of course, you're Rush Limbaugh or the people who make a living attacking him. *Unfortunately those are the people who are controlling the debate.*

I know, broken record...

I guess we're going nowhere now. You guys think talk shows should be the focus. I think improving the public health system should be the focus. We disagree. Fine.

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously believe it will greatly reduce the potential number of them. And we still can improve the mental health system as well. The two are symbiotic, not antithetical.
> ...



Once again, I take issue with the idea that we can only focus on one.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2011)

> I don't enjoy Keith Olbermann's derisive, snotty commentary either, nor Krugman's hysterics,



Krugman is anything but hysterical! You don't agree with the column I linked, but his arguments are always solidly supported by facts and figures. Even that column - which is more subjective than normal - has a link to the Department of Homeland Security report expressing general concern about right-wing nuts.

Olbermann on the other hand was a jerk as a sports reporter in Boston in 1981 when I was in college at Berklee, and he's still a jerk. I almost always agree with him, but his personality is grating.

But not as grating as Chris Mathews with his constant interrupting, making his guests antsy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2011)

Richard, my answer is once again:

BECAUSE THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 12, 2011)

C M Dess @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Technology is the currency of our survival.



Until the power goes out... Then drummers will rule the world.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2011)

dpasdernick @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> C M Dess @ Wed Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Technology is the currency of our survival.
> ...



Oh good lord, I hope I never live to see that day. :twisted:


----------



## midphase (Jan 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I guess we're going nowhere now. You guys think talk shows should be the focus. I think improving the public health system should be the focus. We disagree. Fine.
> 
> rgames



Inconsistent with your stance on Health Care Reform. You can't have both, either you support more government spending on social services, or you don't...but don't switch sides whenever it's convenient to.


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Once again, I take issue with the idea that we can only focus on one.


I didn't say to exclude either. Rather I asked if you think the current distribution of focus is consistent with the likelihood of having an effect.

Again, if you think talk show hosts really have an effect on these types of events, explain the connection. Simply stating that the connection exists doesn't make it so.

I gave a long list of simliar events. In all of those cases, failure of the public mental health system was clearly a factor: there were warning signs in all of them, and the signs were all ignored because there was no system in place to deal with these people. Therefore, if we had a robust public mental health system, these events might have been avoided.

Where's the corresponding cause-effect explanation for right-wing rhetoric?

The question is simple guys. Why do you keep avoiding it?

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Richard, for what it's worth, I agree with you on mental health issues. I live in NYC, where for lack of funding, insane people populate the streets in large numbers.


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Inconsistent with your stance on Health Care Reform. You can't have both, either you support more government spending on social services, or you don't...but don't switch sides whenever it's convenient to.


When have I ever been against health care reform? I've always been in favor of universal health care coverage and have said as much many times.


----------



## midphase (Jan 12, 2011)

You've repeatedly said we can't afford it and that now is not the right time to address the issue.

As it turns out, you're right...the issue should have been addressed the first time around when it came up during the Clinton administration!


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

Cost is a separate issue. I support universal health care but you can't just legislate it into existence. It has to be done in an economically viable method; that's the point where we've fallen short so far.

OT, anyway...

EDIT: actually, not OT. If we ever decide to start talking about mental health issues instead of feeding the egos of the windbags in the media, the same issue of affordability will come up.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> > I don't enjoy Keith Olbermann's derisive, snotty commentary either, nor Krugman's hysterics,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nick-Krugman is brilliant. The article was emotional and over the top, and as I said and stand by, it connected dots where no obvious correlation exists.

I also agree that Homeland Security, FBI (and the Southern Law Conference, btw) all agree that hate crime and speech is on the rise. I think it's a very important matter that needs to be discussed seriously and often. I don't think it's particularly relevant in this matter, and I don't think it's a good issue to politicize, as that will not only not decrease polarization and overheated rhetoric, I believe it will increase it.

For an example, look at Richard's responses. As you stated previously, Richard is not one of the 'nuts' you're worried about-but he has a different p.o.v. than you do, and your responses seem to anger him. IMO, he makes some good points, but I've seen no 'give' on your part.

If his response is an average one from a thoughtful conservative, how do you suppose the less thoughtful out there will react to the idea that political capital is being made on an issue they don't feel is relevant?

It all comes down to the same thing I talked about earlier. Do you want to "win" because you're "right", or do you want to make some progress? We all have to get along somehow.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I take issue with the idea that we can only focus on one.
> ...



You are correct IMHO that the balance may not be proportionally right but denouncing the demonization of political adversaries is a small task where reforming the mental health arena is a large one. 

Common sense says that if you spill gasoline all over floors, the chances of a fire are increased. We do not need studies to prove what should be obvious to anyone.


----------



## rgames (Jan 12, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> We do not need studies to prove what should be obvious to anyone.


The great thing about concepts that are obvious is that they're easy to prove.

OBVIOUSLY gravitation exists. Pick up a rock. Now release it. It falls to the earth. Can you deny that the rock fell to the earth?

OBVIOUSLY the sun rises in the east. Look east before dawn. Wait. Watch the sun come up. Can you deny the sun came up in the east?

Gravitation and eastern sunrises are obvious because they are easily verifiable.

Your claim, at present, has no equivalent verification, only repeated statement.

Is your claim possible? Yes. Does it have some logic to it? Yes. Does that make it an obvious fact? No.

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2011)

[quote:7ccd44c52e="rgames @ Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:57 pm"][quote:7ccd44c52e="Ashermusic @ Wed Jan 12, 201ò    6·®    6·ÿ    6¾h    6¾~    6¿&    6¿=    6Àå    6Á    6éÎ    6ê    7´    7æ    7    7Q    7Å    7ð    7r    7Š    7?    7?j    7KÖ    7LÄ    7Tâ    7U    7h¸    7i    7“u    7“Ý    7³X    7³    7ôK    7ô    8ý    8    8u    8¹    8”    8a    8ä    8"    8;    8;°    8k’    8k  


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I think you're missing the points guys. The question isn't whether extremist rhetoric causes violence like this. It doesn't. That's a hard point to make. What causes violence like this is insanity. The real question is does extreme rhetoric floating around in the media 24/7 then become a justification for violence? In the perpetrator's mind, he'll latch on to any excuse to act out his destructive feelings. There is every indication that he was influenced by extremist conspiracy talk. Much along the lines of what Glenn Beck spouts out everyday.
> 
> So in the shooters mind it makes it "OK" to blow away government officials because he's already convinced that they're evil. In his mind he's doing a public service.
> 
> So it's incumbent on all who hold sway over public opinion to be responsible in how they say what they say. Sadly most of the people who form public opinion are not responsible. It's a shame.



I don't think it's "the" point. I think it's "a" point and a valid one, but thus far evidentially unrelated to this specific incident. I most heartily agree with the need for more civility in political and entertainment/talk show rhetoric.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're missing the points guys. The question isn't whether extremist rhetoric causes violence like this. It doesn't. That's a hard point to make. What causes violence like this is insanity. The real question is does extreme rhetoric floating around in the media 24/7 then become a justification for violence? In the perpetrator's mind, he'll latch on to any excuse to act out his destructive feelings. There is every indication that he was influenced by extremist conspiracy talk. Much along the lines of what Glenn Beck spouts out everyday.
> ...



Well according to the shooter's neighbors he was quite often at their house watching conspiracy videos with their kids. Trust me. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to kill a congress women. He's the bottom rung of a right wing mania that has unfortunately been in Tucson for a long time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Sadly, the last time someone said "trust me" to me, they ended up selling me a Renault hatchback.  

Where are the facts to support your premise? The neighbor bit is anecdotal and inconclusive. I respect your opinion, but I feel that you need to realize that that's what it is at this point-a closely held, deeply felt, but as of yet an unsupported opinion.

Think about this-are you emotionally invested in this guy's having been moved by political rhetoric to commit this heinous act? What if it turned out he'd watched a lot of MSNBC? Would you be as vehement?

In my view, more people need to step off their team bus and get onto the human bus.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Sadly, the last time someone said "trust me" to me, they ended up selling me a Renault hatchback.
> 
> Where are the facts to support your premise? The neighbor bit is anecdotal and inconclusive. I respect your opinion, but I feel that you need to realize that that's what it is at this point-a closely held, deeply felt, but as of yet an unsupported opinion.
> 
> ...



You're completely not understanding me. That much is pretty obvious. I don't have an inclination to explain myself further. I'm really not being partisan. Just calling it as I see it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

Yes, you're not the first to suggest I'm dense in the course of this thread.

It's interesting to me how not agreeing=not understanding. So you're saying if I understood you, I'd agree with you?

The fault must lie in my diminished mental capacity, then.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Yes, you're not the first to suggest I'm dense in the course of this thread.
> 
> It's interesting to me how not agreeing=not understanding. So you're saying if I understood you, I'd agree with you?
> 
> The fault must lie in my diminished mental capacity, then.



Jumping to conclusions again. 

I'm not interested in whether you agree or disagree with me nor was I making any comment on your intelligence. It's just obvious to me that you're not getting what I'm saying. Which simply put, ideas lead to actions, actions when wrong are justified (made right by the doer) by ideas. The guy was into conspiracy theories. That much is certain and he used those as a justification to act violently. It's not really a left or right thing. It just is what it is. 

I'm not saying that he wouldn't have found some other atrocity to commit under some other "reasons" if the "reasons" he did act on weren't floating around, but it is curious that he is spouting through websites a lot of the anger that a lot of my more conservative friends spout off almost incessantly.

"What is government if words have no meaning?".


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 12, 2011)

"It's not really a left or right thing. It just is what it is." J.H.

"He's the bottom rung of a right wing mania that has unfortunately been in Tucson for a long time.".J.H.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2011)

Larry, Richard - and I think you - feel that this crime has to be looked at as an isolated incident. I see it as an inevitable outcome of the current environment we're living in, and if that conclusion were totally arbitrary we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Where is there room to give? I understand the intellectual arguments against my opinion; I simply disagree with them. If I had anything else to say I'd say it, but I don't think any of us do at this point.

Meanwhile Obama's speech - what I read of it (I haven't seen it yet) - seemed really good.


----------



## midphase (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm not sure the facts will come in the way you'd like them to come in for you to decry it. Pathological killers are not that simple to figure out, to this day nobody is quite sure how Manson ticks, and definitely nobody has figured out quite the reasoning of Oswald (leading many to speculate that he didn't really have enough motive to do what he did).

In this particular case, this nutball would have to admit that he was sufficiently brainwashed by angry rhetoric that he was truly believing that he was acting for the betterment of the country. Unfortunately I am not convinced that he would ever be cooperative enough to admit to anything other than nonsense. 20 years from now this guy will be interviewed on 60 Minutes and will still sound just as crazy and make no sense as he is now.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 13, 2011)

I suppose we shall see. I imagine more will come to light before this is over.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 13, 2011)

This has been an interesting thread. FWIW, in Larry's noble spirit of trying to better understand the perspective of others, I'm going to try to succinctly try to summmarise where I am after a few day's debate, and where I think those who disagree are coming from.

*The prosecution* (well, me anyway, no more royal "we"s!)

1. Political rhetoric has become increasingly vitriolic and violent in recent years.

2. There is academnic evidence to link violent political rhetoric with increased violent stated intentions among those who are already disposed to violence - in other words, it magnifies pre-existing violent (stated) intent.

3. Gun ownership is available to virtually all, including the mentally unstable within communities.

4. Arizona is a state which holds extremely diverse political views, including a particularly vociferous element that uses extremely violent imageary within mainstream culture. Gifford's Repulican opponent at the last election held an event billed "Get on Target for Victory in November: Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"

5. While there is no known direct causal link between rhetoric and Jared Loughner, there is a striking parallel between all of the above and the events in Tuscon last week that exposes the potential for violence within this cultural backdrop.


*The defence* (if I understand correctly)

1. The shooter, Jared Loughner, displays all the symptoms of being mentally unstable.

2. There is no evidence linking the shooter with any right wing movement, or aligning himself with any of the beliefs of those who use violent rhetoric.

3. The only issue directly relevant to the Arizona shooting is how America deals with those who are mentally unstable.


It's obvious to me that The Defence's argument is far more straightforward and perfectly logical. The prosecution's case is nuanced and contains logical gaps which rely on emotion or suggestion to adequately fill. Nevertheless, that's still where I am!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 13, 2011)

Love your analysis. Gonna respond when i have time. 

We agree more than you think!


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> 2. There is academnic evidence to link violent political rhetoric with increased violent stated intentions among those who are already disposed to violence - in other words, it magnifies pre-existing violent (stated) intent.


That paper is interesting but not really related to the topic we're discussing here. To wit:

1. Nobody in the study commited an act of violence. Furthermore, none of the participants stated they *would* commit an act of violence. Rather, the participants sat at a computer and answered questions about support for angry rhetoric.

2. The paper measured *anger* and not *action*. Sure, some people will get angry when exposed to angry rhetoric. But there's no evidence that the anger pushes them into picking up a gun and firing into a crowd of people. There's a HUGE gap between the two and the paper does not address the latter.

3. The "violent language" used on the subjects is *very* subdued (the paper says as much - see the examples). The level of support for such language would, in my opinion, be substantially reduced if it were more extreme. Saying "we should fight politican XYZ" will garner a lot more support than "we should shoot politician XYZ."



> 3. Gun ownership is available to virtually all, including the mentally unstable within communities.


Can you show that gun laws have any relationship to gun violence? DC has extremely strict gun laws and extremely high gun violence. There are many other examples. Furthermore, gun ownership is not available to those who are identified as mentally unstable. When mentally unstable people have gotten guns via legal channels it has always been a result of a failure in the mental health system (which is where the debate should be...)

EDIT: here are some more examples: California and Maryland: some of the toughest gun laws in the US yet both are consistently in the top 5 states of per-capita gun violence. Utah: some of the most lenient gun laws in the US yet it is consistently towards the bottom of the list of states in per-capita gun violence.



> Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"


FYI Giffords made many more direct references to gun use than Jesse kelly ever did. 

Rather than going through a list of items that dance around the thesis, why don't you look at similar cases in the past and draw some conclusions using an example that includes the elements you're implying? Make your argument there: I gave a list of some. Pick others, if you like.

Here we are, four pages into a debate about how political rhetoric affects violent acts and *still* nobody has used the long history of such violent acts to make the case that the link is there.



> Meanwhile Obama's speech - what I read of it (I haven't seen it yet) - seemed really good.


It was good. And it said the same thing I've been saying for the last four pages: quit focusing on this tit-for-tat political bullshit that has nothing to do with the shootings in Tucson (yes, he explicitly stated that) and focus on the real issues.

Maybe you'll believe it now that Obama said it... I can only hope.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jan 13, 2011)

Sigh....Richard, perhaps you should run for office since you're so good at sidetracking the real points by nitpicking on factors which don't really matter.

For the record, when you make a point, you often do not back it up with fact either, and when you do point to an article for back up, the facts presented in the article tend to be highly subjective and if anything more opinioned than the very opinion that you're trying to challenge in the first place.

Obama said exactly what he needed to say, but the real question is not how that affects the behavior of already mellow liberals, but rather if it has any impact on the angry mob mentality conservatives...judging from Palin's speech, that answer would be a resounding "no."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/13/b ... tml?hpt=C2


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

Kays - I hope the irony of your link is not lost on others. You accuse me of refuting facts in my arguments and provide a link to a page with the word "Opinion" emblazoned across the top.

FWIW, I am unaware of the source of your claim. I do not, in fact, post a lot of links because I'm able to think for myself, so I generally present my arguments as such.

In this particular argument, my position is that the facts do not exist, so of course I wouldn't point to a fact. How can I point to something that doesn't exist?

The burden is on you, Nick, and others to show the facts. And, again, after four pages, they still have not surfaced. You keep repeating that they exist, and are obvious, and yet they remain elusive.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jan 13, 2011)

Here's a fact Richard:

Since Sarah Palin's "Target Map" appeared, Arizona Democrats received several death threats. One would logically conclude that sooner or later, some nutjob would move beyond the threats and into action, ergo...



Also, since someone did move forward after both Palin and Right wingers alike urged to take up arms in no-so-subtle words, and someone did take up arms in an attempted assassination of a political figure. Logic would conclude that the burden of proof is rather on you (i.e. Right wingers) to prove how this is not the result of angry and inflamed rhetoric.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2011)

Good article from Republicans in Tucson talking about the tone of the party and it's relationship to violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 08116.html


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 13, 2011)

Once again and then I will bow out:

If you intentionally spill gas on the floors of several buildings, you are creating environments where someone for whatever reason is going to light a match and blow it up.

Anyway, demonizing opponents is IMHO immoral so condemning doing so is a no-brainer.


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

Jay - you don't need analogies. You have case studies. Use them instead.

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 13, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Jay - you don't need analogies. You have case studies. Use them instead.
> 
> rgames



No I will settle for my common sense.

If I walk around a square day after day carrying a sign that says i.e "Nazis suck" sooner or later, some fool is going to try to hurt me.

I don't need a "case study" to confirm it.


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

At one point, common sense also led to the conclusion that the earth is flat.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2011)

How about this article where the conservative leader promoting civility in debate received threats, not from people on the left but from people on the right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 08219.html

Face it rgames the party is being bullied by wackos. And the conservative movement is under attack by the extreme anarchist elements of the right.


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

Jose - I've already capitulated that there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the right. Again, I don't know, but if you say so, fine.

My point is that it doesn't matter. I still haven't seen the link between that rhetoric and the people who go out and conduct violent acts.

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 13, 2011)

Richard, you are saying the same things repeatedly. I notice you didn't comment on my "case for the defence", so I assume I got that bit right (way to go, me!) So I for one get your point, it makes sense and I don't agree with it. You appear, however, not to be getting mine. May I humbly suggest you take a leaf out of Larry's book, and try to understand a different point of view, even if it's not one you subscribe to?

You spent a long time building a straw man with that study I quoted. All I ever said was exactly what you said - it shows an increase in support, not action.

As to gun laws by state... IMHO it's primarily a federal issue. You had 13,000 fatal shooting last year. We had 60 in the UK, where gun ownership is EXTREMELY strictly controlled. I'm sure this won't impress you and I'll happily accept it's not the whole story, but I must admit I do have this crazy notion that guns are related to gun crime.


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 13, 2011)

This all makes me wonder. Where are the moderate Republicans in this? Where are the compassionate conservatives? Where is Mitt Romney for example? Colin Powell? Condoleezza Rice? Tim Pawlenty? Susan Collins? Olympia Snowe? Mark Kirk? David Gergen? George Will? 

As someone who voted for a moderate Republican for governor in my state last election, I'm not asking these people to appear in front of the press and talk rhetoric today. But instead stop fearing people like Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly Coulter, and take a stand against their extremism. Being Republican shouldn't mean you have to accept everything from the far right. And certainly it doesn't mean these talk radio/tv people should be immune from criticism when they are wrong. Rhetoric like that from the angry fringe, fueled by politicians like Palin and Bachman is not just ripping the GOP apart, it's ripping the country apart. So I ask again? Where are the moderate Republicans? Where are the intellectual Republicans? Where are the compassionate conservatives? They seem to be hiding in the corner while allowing the bullies to pick on the handicapped kids, even beat them to a pulp. Now is the time for them to stand up and fight back for what's right. 

Thanks for the link Jose. Good read. Thanks too Nick for the Krugman article. Don't always agree with him, but he was spot on. He gets it.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Jose - I've already capitulated that there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the right. Again, I don't know, but if you say so, fine.
> 
> My point is that it doesn't matter. I still haven't seen the link between that rhetoric and the people who go out and conduct violent acts.
> 
> rgames



Then my friend, I fear that you are blind.

It's kind of like saying that extreme Islamic rhetoric doesn't lead to terrorism. Who knows maybe it doesn't, but it certainly stirs the emotions through irrational fears of the true believer which then justifies violence.

But, I'm emotionally spent debating this. It really is upsetting. 

How is Tucson doing after all this?


----------



## rgames (Jan 13, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> How is Tucson doing after all this?


Partly depressed because of the tragedy and partly pissed about everyone saying it's our own fault...

There are still moderate republicans - probably most. They tend not to make great news, though, so they don't get the attention.

Supposedly I live in an ultra-conservative state and I talk a lot of politics with a lot of people. Limbaugh, Beck, etc. rarely come up in conversation, and when they do it's never because of their sage advice; usually the opposite. Most people agree that they're entertaining, but I don't know of anyone who looks to them for guidance on matters of substance. Most often the discussion centers on anger over the fact that the national media uses them as representatives of the republican party. Well, that's what the republicans say. The democrats seem to be ok with it...

Limbaugh et al are at the fringe, WAY at the fringe, but everything that shows up in the media is at the fringe because it makes for better ratings.

rgames


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 13, 2011)

Ahh, but my point is that it's in the hands of the GOP to alter that perception. As I see it, moderates like those I listed have plenty of opportunity to get the attention away from the fringe of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Bachman, etc. But they seem to have little interest in doing so. Or a fear of confronting them and alienating "the base". 

The Democrats have their own similar quagmires by the way. 

The times I spent in Arizona I didn't find it that ultraconservative either. And I've been all over the state. There likely are more extremists there than, say, Rhode Island, sure. But for the most part people are people. I find that people in the country have way, way more in common than they realize. This means people in San Francisco and people in Tuscon are much more similar in their beliefs than the pundits from either "side" would have us believe, or use as a way to divide people to increase their importance.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2011)

That's a good ending to this thread, if it's ending. Perhaps no one's mind was changed, but hopefully people listened to each other a little and came away with a slightly altered perspective. Or at least listened with an open mind.

Any way you look at it, as Americans we're in this together. Tucson took one on the chin here. My condolences to the families of the dead and hopes for quick healing to the injured.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Maybe you'll believe it now that Obama said it... I can only hope.
> 
> rgames




Ummm...actually, first Larry said it...then Obama read the thread, and...well. You know.


----------

