In the tragic wake of the shooting last Saturday in Arizona where Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded you could almost have written the msm's script for them (actually strike the word "almost"). Channel-surfing last night and stopped to browse a little at "Meet the Press" (but only a little as I can't take much of this stuff lately) and caught key words like Tea Party (what did they have to do with it?), free speech, we have to watch the words we use, Sarah Palin (but of course!) etc. etc. This is the usual framing of the issue by the msm after such a tragic event and follows the narrative arc set by the George Tiller murder which is basically that right-wing rhetoric is ultimately responsible for these happenings. The young shooter, Jared Loughner is known to be anti-government and as soon as I read that in my morning paper the day after the massacre I already knew what the media spin would be. Now many people and groups have been "anti-government" down through the ages and many were lauded by the Left (e.g. Vietnam) so when did all of a sudden being against the government or anti-government if you will become
a bad thing?
Used to work with a Jamaican chef back in the day, always struck me as being very intelligent and he felt AIDS was invented by the U.S. government which when you stop to think about it why should there be a new disease? You had the CIA's MK-ULTRA's social experiment dosing unsuspecting citizens with the mind-altering LSD, a documented conspiracy so who's to say where one's grasp on reality ends and paranoia begins? At any rate the Moral of the Story is that assholes exist, have always existed and will always exist. It is said the Columbine shooters were obsessed with the movie The Matrix, does that mean the movie should never have been made or we can't enjoy it (although the sequels were existentially painful)? So to kind of drive the Point home here the Tea Party ain't the real problem or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or O'Reilly or Sarah Palin or your right-wing mailman......the simple fact of the matter is the existence of the asshole a problem eternally perplexing to Mankind that dates back to the Stone Age. I don't know what makes the Asshole tick and they can wreak all kinds of havoc but if Leviathan Government uses the case of the asshole who takes matters into his own hands to say you shouldn't criticize Leviathan Government and if the media backs them up then I see that as kind of a bigger problem and I think that's the whole point actually of the predictable media commentary (I almost said coverage, 'twould be nice if the msm could just get back to coverage). It's using such tragedies for political ends and then the second point after they're done bashing conservatives becomes Gun Control. It's really why I've been reading field guides to mammals lately:)
Actually you could make a really good case for AIDS being a disease engineered to be a biological weapon. It's got everything you want in a biological weapon. Oh, I could sit here and make this case. There's a lot to be said for it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as this shooting goes, it's obvious the guy was f'd up to start with. That does not negate the fact that the recent past has seen some of the most violent, vitriolic, hate-filled rhetoric that politics can dish out. I'm not saying people can't dissent, but I am saying that politicians need to be responsible in choosing their words. More than that, when issues arose with supporters and so on taking it a bit too far (like yelling 'assassinate Obama' or 'kill Obama' or whatever it was they did say at that Palin rally), it behooves the candidates to speak against that kind of behaviour and to reiterate that we are supposed to all be grownups and be civil. A lot of the campaign talk appeared to be for practical terms incite-to-riot and playing on the already high emotions and tension in the country. That kind of thing is reprehensible. That 'we don't retreat, we reload' language is reprehensible. A lot of these low-end-of-the-gene-pool folk already sleep with a semiautomatic weapon so they can defend themselves when the Black Helicopters come.. they don't need more reasons to resort to violence.
I think it's way past time for politics to take some responsibility in this regard. Dissent can be civilised and in fact it's really the only way to make actual progress. Communication is the key. Remember all the town hall meetings where people who had actual questions couldn't hear the answers because the speakers were constantly shouted down? That's just counterproductive. It's time to all use our inside voices and speak with reason and rationality.
Saty, were you equally offended by all the things said and done by the left towards Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and President Bush? Michelle Malkin has an extensive list of terrible things said about conservatives:
ReplyDeletehttp://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
Furthermore, Saty, have you noticed that the shooter was contacting the congresswoman as early as 2007 and hasn't been happy with her since then?
ReplyDeleteThat 'we don't retreat, we reload' language is reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteYou used an analogy once that I found reprehensible.
I think that to use this situation to try to start a fight is reprehensible and so in the interest of inside voices and rationality I decline to engage in the same.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, there is nothing you can say, I am right and your side is wrong, so very, very wrong!
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to pick a fight, by the way, just pointing a few things out, because lefties seem to have very short memories.
The point of my original post was thus:
ReplyDeletePoliticians of all ideologies need to be responsible in choosing their words and imagery, and when/if supporters try to show up assault rifles at events, or attack opposition supporters, or scream that a candidate should be lynched, killed, assassinated, whatever, those politicians have a responsibility to remind people that political discourse should be civil and above all nonviolent.
I would find it difficult to believe that any rational, reasonable person of any political ideology could or would disagree with what I've said in the previous paragraph.
That being said, I do decline to engage in a fight over it, because it runs counter to my original point. You may, however, choose to interpret, embellish, elaborate or otherwise fabricate upon it as you like.
"... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that the response by this individual was proper and just but what I am saying is that it was/is inevitable. And all the heated, controversial, call it what you will, rhetoric in the world doesn't hold a candle to the actions and the infractions of a great many politicians from both parties and from all 5 branches of government.
In no way does anything you've said negate the duty on politicians to be responsible in their rhetoric and to abjure violence in favour of civilised discourse.
ReplyDeleteBeth has a good point and Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center have been compiling quotes over the years from assorted lefties about conservatives. Oh there's stuff about Clarence Thomas, Jesse Helms, George Bush and all the rest and I don't recall liberal pundits getting all bent out of shape about it or that it could lead to violence. Just sayin':)
ReplyDeleteThat's very idealistic Saty and something to aim for but we're always gonna have rancor in our politics and my whole point is whether civilized discourse or not we are not responsible for the assorted assholes/psychos among us. I'm not really sure of the connection either, if someone calls Chuck Schumer or Charlie Rangel a name does that cause some yokel out in the hinterlands to go off the deep end? I think the guy might have even been a leftie. He had some kind of flag burning video on the Internet and read The Communist Manifesto, dunno, doesn't seem like a teabagger to me.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin is not currently a politician, and Saty, you cited her comment but then said you were talking about politicians, which is it?
ReplyDeleteYou're missing my point Saty. The politicians could take the podium and the airwaves with gags in their mouths or duct tape over their lips. It isn't their rhetoric, their words that are oppressive. It is the power and authority they exercise over the people with each and every vote they cast.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point soapie and that's why I cringe every time a lunatic does something like this. Not only is it wrong of course but it detracts from the real issues involved. It's a distraction and doesn't further the causes of any political movement. So people will continue to talk about the lone nut and what he did instead of the politicians and "the power and authority they exercise over the people with each and every vote they cast."
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin is a former vice-presidential candidate, a former reality-show star and a nonstop media soundbyte. At least weekly she's insinuating that she may (or may not) run in the next election. She remains active in political arenas.
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing to believe that people would disagree with the statement that violent political rhetoric from politicians of all ideologies need to be toned down and that politicians need to take some responsibility for the potential consequences of their words.
If you'd like to continue to red-herring and otherwise distract from the actual point by pointing out that Sarah Palin doesn't currently hold office, that's fine, Beth. All it does is highlight an unwillingness on your part to address the actual issue at hand, and an enthusiasm for finding whatever distraction from it you can.
Let's just say for an instant this loser was really influenced by those crosshairs over those congressional districts, this reminds me of the old minister argument that porn turned Ted Bundy into a serial killer. Clearly there is something wrong with you to begin with if you let this or that push you over the edge and so I would say you can debate the taste of Sarah Palin's website if you want but legally she had nothing to do with what happened.
ReplyDeleteHere's a similar analogy Z. Last week I was interviewed by a reporter for one of the local newspapers (Star Tribune) who was doing a story on Centerpoint Energy's (the natural gas provider) new tier pricing mechanism. She [the reporter] had found my name because I had filed complaints with Centerpoint and the Public Utilities Commission about the tier pricing mechanism which charges, not a straight per therm cost, but graduated pricing (higher cost per therms if you use more therms, etc.).
ReplyDeleteThe paper and subsequently the reporter wanted to go the "poor old lady who now has energy bills she can't pay" angle and my entire point with the reporter was that was merely a consequence of a piss poor policy which was the essence of what the article ought to have been about. I made points about "what business in America charges you more for purchasing more of their product?", "hate to sound hyperbolic about it but this is a fascist policy (see corporate fascism under Mussolini)", "why is there no market in natural gas or electricity in this state?", "weren't the anti-trust laws designed to prevent this monopolistic/corporatist relationship between business and government to thereby eliminate their competitors?".....etc.
Come Sunday's paper and neither my name nor a single point I made were in the article. They had not interest in reporting but instead in presenting a propaganda piece that comports with their agenda. I suppose this is probably why the article featured a picture of a woman sitting on a radiator.
The real story, which is a fascist/corporatist collusive policy isn't addressed.
People have a breaking point. I often ask myself "what is it going to take for a true revolution to emerge?"
ReplyDeleteHere you've got the Federal government taking over, incrementally and step by step under both parties, huge swaths of the economy for the sake of power and control over the masses. They've taken over food production, banking, housing, education, go right down the list
Eventually, there comes a point where people realize the game is up. There is no peaceful means by which to undo it. And here some of us look in shock and horror that someone would resort to violence.
The reality is that, when an animal is cornered without an option of flight, a violent defensive response is completely and entirely natural.
What's more, here the goddamn pundits and the idiot politicians are now saying "we need to tone down our heated rhetoric and be more civil" and blah blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? JHC, pull your head out of the clouds. These were the same dolts that made "shock and awe" a primetime television event. You've got maybe half a dozen of them that want to tear down the military industrial complex and the rest of them are going to preach about civility?
"I think the guy might have even been a leftie."
ReplyDelete1. Hated big government
2. Dropped out of college
3. Turned down by the Army
4. Wanted return to gold standard.
5. Intended and did shoot a Democratic congresswoman.
A 'leftie'? Just psychotic.
Consider..
1. Beck, Limbaugh
2. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity
3. Limbaugh
4. Beck
5. Thankfully, some pundits just shoot off their mouths. Some bloggers say America is better than this. It just gets worse. The guy was a nut and 'lefty righty tighty loosey' refers not to political viewpoint but
which whay to turn a nut.
The actual point is that there is no evidence that any politician or any particular statement from any one person caused the crazy shooter guy to do what he did, so you whole point Saty is mute.
ReplyDeleteI'm not getting why Hillary's comments were so controversial. While visiting the Arabs she said we have extremists over here too and conservatives had diarrhea. Her statements were not so remarkable but talk about politicizing everything!
ReplyDeleteSoap I've always had trouble with local papers. Used to be a big fan of the Letter-to-the-Editor but they always change your letter around or delete certain parts and then there's the title they give it. Gannett Westchester Newspapers a case in point. Penned a letter once that we should get rid of the income tax, key word income but didn't say anything about other taxes and the title they gave my little missive was "People shouldn't have to pay any taxes." Penned what I thought was a very reasonable moderate pro-life letter to the Scarsdale Inquirer and the lady editor there used the work "anti-choice" in the title she gave my letter despite my deliberate lack of any pro-life frothing at the mouth. Ever since then I gave up this little hobby of mine, blogging is so much better!!
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit surprised no one questioned my "5 branches of government" comment.
ReplyDeleteOh no I saw that but I figured you were talking about the Shadow Government or something, the 5th Estate. Actually I like your 5 branches of government, somehow seems more accurate.
ReplyDeleteExecutive, Judicial, Legislative, Financial (i.e. Banksters), Media
ReplyDelete"The young shooter, Jared Loughner is known to be anti-government...."
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get this report?
Washington Post reporter, Chris Cillizza reported that Loughner was a registered independent, but did not vote in 2010. He did vote in 2006 and 2008, but interestingly, the Post refuses to say who he voted for.
ReplyDelete“Loughner’s decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party,” writes Cillizza, marking possibly the first time a major establishment media mouthpiece has conceded that efforts to portray Loughner as a tea party conservative are not only insensitive, opportunist and distasteful – but also completely incorrect.
Cillizza remarks that conservatives who pointed out that leftists were wrong to characterize Loughner as a crazed right-winger acting out on extremist political rhetoric have had their case “strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness”.
I wonder why Saty cannot bring herself to admit that she like many others jumped to conclusions that they shouldn't have.
ReplyDeleteBecause I didn't, Beth.
ReplyDeleteAt no time did I ever attempt to link the shooting with the rhetoric. What I said was that politicians of all ideologies need to be responsible in choosing their words. You may have missed that in your eagerness to assign your own conclusions.
I have said twice that in the interest of rationality and reason, which, as we can see, is sorely lacking (as well as is a dictionary.. the word you wanted to use is moot, not mute) I refuse to engage in a fight on this and I stand by that.
LOL Saty are you going to try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge next?
ReplyDeleteSide note, I am thinking about seriously ramping up my blog again with regular post on any number of subjects. What say you?
ReplyDeleteI've been waiting soapster. Anyway where I got that he's anti-gvoernment? in the morning NY Post the next day. You know this thing about mental illness -- the vast majority of the mentally ill don't go on shooting rampages. Maybe they stare out the window and cry or fart around the house all day like in those pill commercials.
ReplyDeleteBut Sat you seemed to be linking the shooting and the rhetoric otherwise why bring up the rhetoric in the first place while discussing the shooting? Thinking out loud, that's the essence of blogging for me but there's always that risk of...errors?...so it wasn't just Beth but I got that interpretation as well. Shaw posted on her blog that these shootings don't take place in a vacuum but actually sometimes they do, it's known as Looney-Tunes.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I actually said:
ReplyDeleteAs far as this shooting goes, it's obvious the guy was f'd up to start with. That does not negate the fact that the recent past has seen some of the most violent, vitriolic, hate-filled rhetoric that politics can dish out.
What I've done here is present some strong opinions. The first one regards the shooter. He was/is f'd up. No question, no doubt.
The second, equally without question or doubt is that the general tone of politics in this country is abhorrent, and that the vast majority of the politicians who have chosen to lean towards the incite-to-riot side have taken no responsibility for violent responses on those who listen to them. Even when a person was attacked at an event the politicians involved had no comment whatsoever.
I am not drawing a cause/effect relationship here. I am, however, taking the opportunity of the situation, an act of violence directed towards a congressperson (and innocent bystanders), to point out that politics itself has been talking a mighty violent line itself for the past couple of years and it's time for politicians to be responsible to present politics as above all nonviolent. Communication, even dissent, does not need to be violent; in fact no actual, measurable progress can take place while one group of people is screaming so loud another group can't hear and/or participate.
I've been talking about this problem for years. In fact, so was Giffords.
What a bunch of bull and you know it. Seriously, Saty, I have absolutely no respect for you (not that I ever really had any) but you had the chance to redeem yourself and blew it.
ReplyDeleteIt is common knowledge that the shooter had no political motive behind his actions and your refusing to back down from mingling politics and the shooting goes to show that you are either hell-bent on making it into something it is not (you are not alone, lots of libbies tried to do so, but unlike you they have backed off it by now) OR you are so arrogant that you cannot even bring yourself to say you misspoke and shouldn't have. Either way, you make me sick.