US Representative Shot in Arizona + Fantasies/Falsehoods about Dreadnt and Guns

[GGT]

Talking about security etc is one thing, trying to use a tragedy to score cheap, petty, political points is something else.

Who's doing that, though?

This isn't a winnable debate type thing, and it's not limited to just cross-hairs or targets or certain political language. It's not even a party problem, it's a national problem.

Seems like every week there's a video of threats to public officials, people shooting guns at school boards, or schools being locked down for a shooter. It's not even a gun problem per se, but a general violence and acting-out problem, even a mental health and community issue. From airports to state or federal offices, schools and public campuses, now even grocery store parking lots.....things have gone from Going Postal or Road Rage, to finding rage and anger pretty much everywhere.

Why wouldn't all causes or contributing factors be part of figuring out what's happened, or how to move forward in a violent and visually viral society?

[RandBlade]

Who's doing that, though?

Well, without naming others your first post on this thread was

Palin (don't retreat, reload! and using gun scopes as targets) and Angle (we'll use Second Amendment solutions) are cavalier with their "speech".

[GGT]

That's my opinion: cavalier with their speech, inflammatory during social strife, not the best approach (no matter who's doing it). I also don't give news media a pass.

That's not trying to make cheap shots or political points, unless you call wanting a more civil tone in our society "political". Rather hard not to have noticed the last couple of years have gotten angrier and negative. I'm not going to just sit back and act non-chalant, either. This bugs me, all these events taken together don't reflect our best; we can do better, we should do better. And yeah, more people should say so. Is that "political", too?

[Steely Glint]

All of it is stupid with the semi-exception of your gripe about the person talking about 2nd amendment solutions. "He may be dead' was an assessment of Dreihaus's political career if he bucked the pro-life Catholics in his district. "The Catholics will run him out of town" is not a gun reference, it's a reference to a Colonial-era punishment, and Boehner almost certainly isn't even aware of that much *considering the crappy state of US history education* it's just another bog-common bit of figurative speech. Show me any comment I've made, anywhere, which suggests this is about me being partisan, that I give a rats ass whether the rhetoric comes from a Republican, a Democrat or anyone else in the American political spectrum. You all are taking idiom literally.

Ah, so teabaggers turning up to political events openly armed are actually being metaphorical? Is it, like, some kind of post-modern thing?

Answer me this; if Boehner was being figurative about Dreihau's political career, has he made any such statement to that effect, given that the first quote became an official Item of Controversy in the media? Normally when that happens, the person in question says "I didn't mean that, I actually meant something else".

Incidentally, LF, if you and I were feuding neighbors and I spent all my time talking about how I was going to shoot you, how if you don't stop being an ass someone might shoot you, and every time I talk about having an argument over the picket fence with you I'm talking about using military or violence based metaphors... and I own a lot of guns... even if everyone on the street knows it's just bluster, that I'm incapable of actually shooting another human being, that I'm talking figuratively, etc to what extent to I have the right to be indignant if, when you actually get shot by someone, the first conclusion everyone jumps to I'd that I had something to do with it, even if this later proves to be incorrect ?

edit: Screw it. There is absolutely no way to demonstrate figurative and idiomatic speech to people who refuse to look at language that way. Falstaff literally thought Prince Hal was a canine. Fine, we're about to become engulfed in a wave of political violence because people in the US don't share your immediate culturo-lingual background. Gifford's was just the first sign.

Oh yeah, sorry. My cultural-lingual background. Yeah, this is why only foreigners are objecting to recent heavy use of right-wing gun based rhetoric. Oh, wait...

And where did you get that piece of fantasy? Only thing I've seen so far here or poking around online is that graphic circling the event excerpt from a list of "upcoming events" and a quick google search indicates the event never even took place, it got canceled.

Read it somewhere. May have misread it, so I'm conceding this point.

[Enoch the Red]

Ah, so teabaggers turning up to political events openly armed are actually being metaphorical? Is it, like, some kind of post-modern thing?

It's probably people exercising their right to do so. I personally don't think flaunting being armed is a good idea, for a number of reasons, but it's (depending on their jurisdiction) often their right to do so. Many people open-carry all the time, not just at political events.

Answer me this; if Boehner was being figurative about Dreihau's political career, has he made any such statement to that effect, given that the first quote became an official Item of Controversy in the media? Normally when that happens, the person in question says "I didn't mean that, I actually meant something else".

When Obama said that he'd bring a gun to a knife fight with Republicans, did he literally mean he would bring a firearm to the capitol, or face off mano-a-mano with John McCain? Is it possible that not everything politicians say should be taken literally, and there is a certain nuance to words that is well understood here?

[Steely Glint]

It's probably people exercising their right to do so. I personally don't think flaunting being armed is a good idea, for a number of reasons, but it's (depending on their jurisdiction) often their right to do so. Many people open-carry all the time, not just at political events.

By openly carrying a weapon, you're obviously making some kind of statement, which can be summed up as "I'm armed, don't fuck with me". It's a threat. And if you openly carry a weapon at a political event, it's clearly therefore also a political statement. And clearly also a threat. "I'm armed, I'm clearly crazy enough to turn up to a political rally with a fucking gun, and I don't get my way, I might do something a we'd all regret, ok? ". And, as I said to Fuzzy, if you're going openly carry a deadly weapon in inappropriate contexts, you can't complain if people then find you a little bit scary and jump to the wrong conclusion when someone gets shot.

When Obama said that he'd bring a gun to a knife fight with Republicans, did he literally mean he would bring a firearm to the capitol? Is it possible that not everything politicians say should be taken literally, and there is a certain nuance to words that is well understood here?

It's true, but what if Obama kept on saying things like that? What if it was Democrats, not Republicans who are into firearms in a big way? What if Obama was saying thing that actually suggests violence, but a few Democrats in the House were saying things like, "ooh, If John McCain keeps standing in the way of Progress, he might just find himself first up against the wall when the people's revolution comes?" It's just a metaphorical wall, what's the problem? Another less fringe Democrat has written down a Republican in their little red book. Relax, it's not a real book. Figuratively, Congressman So-So and so might be dragged off to an Alaskan gulag come the revolution, which is also a metaphor, but not really. Probably.

What if MoveOn.Org people kept making threatening phone calls to Republicans? I mean, you can't blame the Democrat leadership for what MoveOn.Org does, they're crazy. Anyone who sends out that many e-mails must be crazy. Maybe a few Republicans who didn't vote for the Health Care bill got their offices smashed up? It just happens sometimes to people in public office. No problem, comrade.

Then, someone guns down an especially right wing Republican. One of the really annoying ones. Then people think, hey maybe some MoveOn.Org nutjob took things a bit too far, maybe all that "glorious people's revolution" stuff was a bit of a mistake? Is that unreasonable?

Nuance, yes. Also, context. You can't keep on using the same violence based metaphors, if that's what they are, and not have people wonder if maybe they're not as metaphorical as all that.

[Steely Glint]

Also, does anyone have any experience of the kind of guy who keeps "jokingly" threatening people? What's he really trying to say with his jokes? Firstly, he's definitely saying "I could". He may also be saying "I would, if you push me far enough".

I mean, if we're going to be talking about nuance and everything, we might as well also talk about subtext.

[Enoch the Red]

By openly carrying a weapon, you're obviously making some kind of statement, which can be summed up as "I'm armed, don't fuck with me". It's a threat. And if you openly carry a weapon at a political event, it's clearly therefore also a political statement. And clearly also a threat. "I'm armed, I'm clearly crazy enough to turn up to a political rally with a fucking gun, and I don't get my way, I might do something a we'd all regret, ok? ". And, as I said to Fuzzy, if you're going openly carry a deadly weapon in inappropriate contexts, you can't complain if people then find you a little bit scary and jump to the wrong conclusion when someone gets shot.

I actually don't disagree. People who open carry generally do so to make a statement, though that statement often is more than just, "Don't fuck with me," and rarely the threat you seem to think it is. I also don't disagree that by open carrying they are opening themselves up to people jumping to the wrong conclusions. It doesn't make them particularly dangerous though. LTC permit holders have a much lower arrest/conviction rate than average citizens.

It's true, but what if Obama kept on saying things like that? What if it was Democrats, not Republicans who are into firearms in a big way? What if Obama was saying thing that actually suggests violence, but a few Democrats in the House were saying things like, "ooh, If John McCain keeps standing in the way of Progress, he might just find himself first up against the wall when the people's revolution comes?" It's just a metaphorical wall, what's the problem? Another less fringe Democrat has written down a Republican in their little red book. Relax, it's not a real book. Figuratively, Congressman So-So and so might be dragged off to an Alaskan gulag come the revolution, which is also a metaphor, but not really. Probably.

What if MoveOn.Org people kept making threatening phone calls to Republicans? I mean, you can't blame the Democrat leadership for what MoveOn.Org does, they're crazy. Anyone who sends out that many e-mails must be crazy. Maybe a few Republicans who didn't vote for the Health Care bill got their offices smashed up? It just happens sometimes to people in public office. No problem, comrade.

Then, someone guns down an especially right wing Republican. One of the really annoying ones. Then people think, hey maybe some MoveOn.Org nutjob took things a bit too far, maybe all that "glorious people's revolution" stuff was a bit of a mistake? Is that unreasonable?

Nuance, yes. Also, context. You can't keep on using the same violence based metaphors, if that's what they are, and not have people wonder if maybe they're not as metaphorical as all that.

Did the person that gunned down the annoying Republican happen to be certifiably crazy, with no connection to or affiliation with the Democratic party, and in all likelihood any political party at all? In that case, I think it would be seen, by me anyways, as enormously bad taste, but otherwise completely unrelated.

Every day, for fifty years, a mystic claims that he will be killed by a magical meteorite, then one day he finally has a stroke and dies. Does that mean the man suddenly has mystical clairvoyance, and must we now fear the magical meteorite?

[Steely Glint]

No, look. I reject any argument that recent right wing rhetoric is connected to this shooting because the evidence isn't there. The points I am making are these:

a) Before we knew who this guy was, everyone (well, a lot of people) assumed he was something to do with the tea party.
b) They have no one to blame but themselves for this, because they keep talking about shooting democrats, even if they're actually being secretly ironic.
c) While gun based metaphores might be innocent in isolation, taken together and in the context of general tea party behavior, they can be understood as either vailed treats, or an attempt to 'fire up' the teabaggers in the most irresponsible way conceivable.
d) c) is profoundly unwise and they should stop doing it.
e) While people are wrong if they're still trying to say that Palin, Beck &c caused this they are not wrong to draw a connection in the sense of "Look at this horrible event. THIS is what you're asking for when you so causally speak of "second amendment solutions" and "fully loaded m16s" are you really sure you want to take America back down this path? I know this is not what you want, so choose your words with a little more care in future. Also, stop lying about 'death panels'".

[Enoch the Red]

No, look. I reject any argument that recent right wing rhetoric is connected to this shooting because the evidence isn't there. The points I am making are these:

a) Before we knew who this guy was, everyone (well, a lot of people) assumed he was something to do with the tea party.
b) They have no one to blame but themselves for this, because they keep talking about shooting democrats, even if they're actually being secretly ironic.
c) While gun based metaphores might be innocent in isolation, taken together and in the context of general tea party behavior, they can be understood as either vailed treats, or an attempt to 'fire up' the teabaggers in the most irresponsible way conceivable.
d) c) is profoundly unwise and they should stop doing it.
e) While people are wrong if they're still trying to say that Palin, Beck &c caused this they are not wrong to draw a connection in the sense of "Look at this horrible event. THIS is what you're asking for when you so causally speak of "second amendment solutions" and "fully loaded m16s" are you really sure you want to take America back down this path? I know this is not what you want, so choose your words with a little more care in future. Also, stop lying about 'death panels'".

I don't know about others, but I very rarely hear the kind of rhetoric you seem to think happens every day, day in, day out. I hear heated rhetoric, I hear rancor, I hear a lot of anger, but I rarely if ever hear threats, even veiled ones. Around elections and during the worst of the healthcare debate it was probably more pronounced, but it's hardly commonplace.

Maybe there are others who can comment, I could very well be wrong.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't know about others, but I very rarely hear the kind of rhetoric you seem to think happens every day, day in, day out. I hear heated rhetoric, I hear rancor, I hear a lot of anger, but I rarely if ever hear threats, even veiled ones. Around elections and during the worst of the healthcare debate it was probably more pronounced, but it's hardly commonplace.

Maybe there are others who can comment, I could very well be wrong.

It very much has to do with your location I suspect. This was one of those places, which is why the veiled threat rhetoric came up so quickly. Its such a problem that the sheriff ranted againist it the day of the shooting, the same sheriff that Limbaugh attacked today (even blamed the sheriff for allowing it to happen).

[Dreadnaught]

The cycle of blaming fiscal conservatives and advocates of limited government for the actions of a psychopath is almost complete. Just needs a nudge from Obama (possibly in the State of the Union) and some relentless pounding from party proxies and we're all set.

OPINION | JANUARY 10, 2011
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

Mr. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...818696964.html

[GGT]

Pots 'n Kettles.

There will be a political component, because he's been charged with "Attempted Assassination" of the congresswoman. Even if it turns out that political ideology had nothing to do with his motivation or intent. The news said his family has barricaded their house and won't let in the FBI, but they showed a picture of a skull on a BBQ grill in the backyard (?) I'm curious to know how so many people could have seen this young man as "strange, crazy, scary, threatening" but he didn't get the mental help he needed. Not even after community college expelled him for mental instability---how does that happen without a follow-up?

[Loki]

Because in order for someone to be sectioned, they have to pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. Unless he explicitly threatened to kill himself or someone else, he can't be forced to undergo a mental check or be held against his will. You can put some moral blame on his parents for not pressuring him, but I read a piece implying that his father has his own mental issues.

As for "political ideology", his ideas seem to be in the same vein as kathatkung's. Are you going to blame the Tea Party for that as well?

[GGT]

Because in order for someone to be sectioned, they have to pose an immediate threat to themselves or others. Unless he explicitly threatened to kill himself or someone else, he can't be forced to undergo a mental check or be held against his will. You can put some moral blame on his parents for not pressuring him, but I read a piece implying that his father has his own mental issues.

It's not "moral blame", but I do wonder what happened with his parents' involvement. Assuming the school sent them an expulsion letter, but maybe not due to privacy laws?

As for "political ideology", his ideas seem to be in the same vein as kathatkung's. Are you going to blame the Tea Party for that as well?

Cheap shot.

[Loki]

Unless he gave the college permission, they can't discuss his issues with his parents.

What's a cheap shot? The guy is as insane as kat (except he's even less coherent than kat). Do you kat is really "influenced" by the world events he writes about? He'd find a conspiracy regardless of what happened.

[Dreadnaught]

The news said his family has barricaded their house and won't let in the FBI, but they showed a picture of a skull on a BBQ grill in the backyard (?)

For fuck's sake, you're just letting every rumor and detail fit into your preconceived notions about this.

USA TODAY's Jack Gillum has just left the property, which he describes as "[j]ust a nice, minimal backyard with brickwork and cat's claw growing thickly around." He says there is no barricade on the front door itself, just a piece of wood blocking the walkway.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-family-home/1

Cheap shot.

Totally legit. The guy does seem as insane as Kat.

[GGT]

Unless he gave the college permission, they can't discuss his issues with his parents.

Thought maybe that varied by state. Puts parents in a pickle.

What's a cheap shot?

Are you going to blame the Tea Party for that as well? << that's a cheap shot at me, since I've not blamed the Tea party for Tucson.

The guy is as insane as kat (except he's even less coherent than kat). Do you kat is really "influenced" by the world events he writes about? He'd find a conspiracy regardless of what happened.

Begs the question, why isn't kat banned here? Is everyone done "toying" with the guy's mental state as if it's some sort of entertainment?



Dread, the tv news was on in the background, they showed the picture as I walked in the room and I didn't have my glasses on, but it was a skull. See the (?) at the end of my sentence. My preconceived notion of this would have Tucson police and/or FBI interviewing his parents within 24 hours of the event, and that most parents would at least have their lawyer or family spokesperson making a statement.

[Dreadnaught]

We live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations. And I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric anymore than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine. And BTW that is coming from somebody who truly hates our political environment...but to say that is what has caused this, I just don't think you could do. Boy wouldn't that be nice? To draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible...you cannot outsmart crazy. You don't know what a troubled mind will get caught on. Crazy always seems to find a way, it always has.

Left-wing icon Jon Stewart, http://tv.gawker.com/5730178/watch-j...izona-shooting

[GGT]

Again, no one here has tried to draw a straight line of causation from any one thing to this event.

That doesn't mean we can't comment on the nastiness of our political climate, or the general violence in our society, or what "Crazy" is and what it looks like. You'd have to be hermit living off the grid to not notice any of these things. Any number of areas in this tragedy could bother people (political rhetoric, gun control, mental health, media spin) and there will be a certain amount of public speculation, media speculation, pundits posturing. That's how people are, that's how people react to a tragic event, and it's even easier with our social media tools.

If this had been a random shooting at the Safeway that didn't involve the congresswoman, her aide, a federal judge....politics would be way down on the list of stuff people think of, grasping for some sense in a senseless event. It could have been a disgruntled Safeway worker, or the jaded boyfriend of a Safeway cashier, or a discharged veteran with PTSD, or an armed robbery gone bad.....

Sadly, we have so many of these killings, innocent bystanders and children gunned down, it's hard to keep track. Those people didn't get flags flown at half-staff, or national moments of silence. But it's about damn time this became a National conversation (again), instead of bits and pieces skirting the deadly violence that happens every day, year after year, in every US state.

After Columbine, everyone focused on parenting teens, videos and music, bullying, and school safety. After Va Tech, everyone focused on campus alerts and lock-downs, and student awareness. After Ft. Hood, everyone focused on military mental health, and provider mental health. Gun laws were in there, too. Using this mish-mash approach isn't doing us much good. A broad view of America paints a dismal picture; something is borked, but it's never just one thing.

[Enoch the Red]

Again, no one here has tried to draw a straight line of causation from any one thing to this event.

I think that might be white washing things a bit. I think the implication was very clear at the start.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...pinning_tucson

This article is a good look at it.

HOW did a deadly shooting spree by a disturbed young man with the typically inscrutable politics of political killers turn into a crazy referendum on the state of American political discourse?

Mere minutes after the identity of the alleged Tucson gunman hit the wires, partisans began a reprehensible scramble to out Jared Loughner as ideological kin to their political opponents. Actually, well before that time, some left-leaning opinionators began suggesting that Sarah Palin's now-infamous crosshairs map probably had something to do with the shootings. At the very least, intemperately fiery right-wing rhetoric probably had something to do with creating a cultural "climate" unusually encouraging to would-be assassins. Before anybody really knew anything, some people seemed to have become convinced that if not for the heavy weather of partisan antagonism summoned by intemperate tea-party types, Gabrielle Giffords would not have got a bullet through the brain.

In a blog item on Saturday, before any significant details about Mr Loughner's motivations had come to light, Paul Krugman wrote:

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

This struck me as irresponsibly premature, and one might have thought that, given a little more time and information, Mr Krugman would change his tune, or at least turn down the volume. Nope. In today's column on America's alleged "climate of hate", Mr Krugman reports that he's been "expecting something like this atrocity to happen" since 2008, conjures in his fevered imagination a "rising tide of violence", and spots his hated political foes behind it all:

[I]t’s the saturation of our political discourse—and especially our airwaves—with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

What's more, unless the ranting right reins in the kind of talk that leaves Mr Krugman "with a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach", "Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning." Welcome to crazytown, my friends, where it does not seem crazy to disgorge toxic, entirely evidence-free rhetoric about the mortal threat of toxic rhetoric. Does the man honestly think he's helping?

Ezra Klein, who also indulged in a bit of irresponsible early speculation about the role of conservative rhetoric in Mr Loughner's rampage, today points us toward some actually useful information about the killer's mens rea. Nick Baumann of Mother Jones spoke with Bryce Tierney, a friend of Mr Loughner's from school, who offered the following explanation of Mr Loughner's beef with Representative Giffords:

Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges—Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says—but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?' "

Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

Got that? Ms Giffords failed to tender a satisfactory reply to "What is government if words have no meaning?", was judged a fake, and...and Mr Loughner shot her in the head.

At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by "toxic" or "eliminationist" conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It's nuts. It's offensive. Is there any, you know, evidence that political rhetoric is now more vitriolic or incendiary than usual? Maybe there is, but I know of none. A feeling in Mr Krugman's gut doesn't cut it. Doesn't it seem at least as likely that a 22-year-old would be inspired to an act of high-profile atrocity by violent video games or films? As far as I know there's no evidence of that, either.

Mr Loughner's obsession with language as a form of control seems rather less like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin than Max Stirner, Michel Foucault, or even left-leaning linguists such as George Lakoff and Geoffrey Nunberg. Our own Johnson discusses speculation about the possible influence of one David Wynn Miller. But nobody's going to try to smear Max Stirner, George Lakoff, or David Wynn Miller in the pages of the New York Times by recklessly associating their teachings with the tragedy in Tucson because, well, that would be completely bonkers and, more importantly, Max Stirner, George Lakoff, and David Wynn Miller didn't just recapture the House.

Anyway, let Ross Douthat's intelligently measured column be an example to Mr Krugman of the responsible, reasonable, non-toxic analysis he demands, but utterly failed to deliver.

[Lewkowski]

Wow that really didn't get copied over well. Just go to the website to read it.

[GGT]

Maybe this will finally at least get Palin out of the conversation. God damn, that's a fucking terrible way to have communicated information. Hopefully it's fake.

But I'm willing to bet this will be sort of a lone extremist. Possibly even someone with a different agenda like abortion.

Ah well, there goes that ray of hope. She's really toast on this.

But that's honestly besides the point for now. Really curious what the alleged motivation is going to be.

Because there's a difference between being loud and provocative and "incitement". That image pretty much crosses the line for me. I haven't seen her do anything else that crosses the line.

But frankly everyone is really jumping the gun. It took maybe an hour after this hit the news for people to blame Palin. That's not appropriate.

All aboard for jumping the gun?

I think that might be white washing things a bit. I think the implication was very clear at the start.

A congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range, her aide was shot and killed, a federal judge was shot and killed during her "Congressional Meet and Greet" public event.

The congresswoman is on the record, full color youtube video footage from March '10, saying her offices were vandalized, and Tea party protesters had been using the corner of her Tucson HQ, and Palin's site put a gun scope on her district.

It's quite logical and rational for people to opine about possible political connections.

How is that a whitewash of events?

[GGT]

Lewk, you can insert quote tags on your own. Type [ quote] at the beginning, and [ /quote] at the end. (without the spaces) You can type those tags in after you copy and paste an article. Look at your linked article---it will show those marks. It "wraps" things for us, and makes our copy/paste look cleaner. Also, when we quote your post, everything you've copied and pasted doesn't show up, but it's tidy in a URL. So quote tags are nice to use, but you can manually type them in. Make sense?

[Enoch the Red]

A congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range, her aide was shot and killed, a federal judge was shot and killed during her "Congressional Meet and Greet" public event.

The congresswoman is on the record, full color youtube video footage from March '10, saying her offices were vandalized, and Tea party protesters had been using the corner of her Tucson HQ, and Palin's site put a gun scope on her district.

It's quite logical and rational for people to opine about possible political connections.

How is that a whitewash of events?

Again, no one here has tried to draw a straight line of causation from any one thing to this event.

Seems straightforward to me.

[GGT]

From Lewk's economist.com link:

At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by "toxic" or "eliminationist" conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It's nuts. It's offensive. Is there any, you know, evidence that political rhetoric is now more vitriolic or incendiary than usual? Maybe there is, but I know of none. A feeling in Mr Krugman's gut doesn't cut it. Doesn't it seem at least as likely that a 22-year-old would be inspired to an act of high-profile atrocity by violent video games or films? As far as I know there's no evidence of that, either.

We are having this conversation because we don't like to see people killed en masse. In a grocery store parking lot. During a "congressional corner chat".

It's not nuts or offensive to have this discussion. I find it nuts and offensive when pundits say the public is nuts and offensive for having this discussion!

If that author wants "evidence" that things are more vitriolic or incendiary than "usual", he hasn't paid much attention to Town Hall Meetings, or rallies on The Mall, or threats made to public officials, or outbursts during presidential or congressional speeches.

If that author doesn't believe US political discourse has become more toxic than the old newspaper muckraker days, I'd like to know how he defines "usual" in current context. Anything goes? No one is accountable? Feel free to ignore journalism media, political media, and social media too? Just ignore everything and everyone? What a plan.

Contrary to popular hopes, we are not post-racial or post-partisan. Not yet.

[LittleFuzzy]

The congresswoman is on the record, full color youtube video footage from March '10, saying her offices were vandalized, and Tea party protesters had been using the corner of her Tucson HQ, and Palin's site put a gun scope on her district.

And three posts from now, GGT is again going to insist that no one in is positing any sort of relation between Palin/Tea party and what happened.

If that author wants "evidence" that things are more vitriolic or incendiary than "usual", he hasn't paid much attention to Town Hall Meetings, or rallies on The Mall, or threats made to public officials, or outbursts during presidential or congressional speeches.

If that author doesn't believe US political discourse has become more toxic than the old newspaper muckraker days, I'd like to know how he defines "usual" in current context. Anything goes? No one is accountable? Feel free to ignore journalism media, political media, and social media too? Just ignore everything and everyone? What a plan.

I think the claim that things are worse recently is pretty much a bunch of bullshit too. Someone wants to claim things are worse, prove it. Academics are making that sort of content comparison all the time, cite some recent studies.

[GGT]

Seems straightforward to me.

There's a straight connection to politics, because it was a congresswoman and her aide, and a federal judge. But like I said.....it wouldn't seem so straightforward if this had been a disgruntled worker or jaded lover. Even that wouldn't be a straight line, cut and dry.

The only common thread I can find in ALL of these horrid events is someone with mental illness who hasn't been diagnosed---let alone treated---with a gun. And plenty of innocent victims. We have gun-suicides, gun murder-suicides, and general gun-related murders. Some turn it inward, some turn it outward. I have yet to see a comprehensive "study" or explanation. The Swiss mandate households to have a gun. Canadians have a high ratio of guns-to-people. They aren't killing their neighbors, congress people, or children like the US is.....so what's the difference?

If you have theories, with solutions, by all means share!

[earthJoker]

The Swiss mandate households to have a gun. Canadians have a high ratio of guns-to-people. They aren't killing their neighbors, congress people, or children like the US is.....so what's the difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre

There well be a voting in a few weeks if people will still keep their army rifle at home. So far the proposal has good chances to get a majority. Also Switzerland has the highest suicide with guns ratio of all Europe. The crime rate here is much lower though, so you indeed get a much lower homicide by gun ratio than in the US.