Congresswoman shot in AZ (Update: in stable condition)

Smuggler, do you believe that the map was marked with surveyor symbols, or do you lean towards cross-hairs?

 

Hey Smuggy, gullible isn't in the dictionary, right?

[image=http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/9746/palinbullseye.jpg]

That old girl taint what she used to be. Ew...


In other news: People who actually believe they were surveyor marks also think that there's men in the moon, underground tunnels that go all over the world, and that the X-Files was really just a clever documentary.

 

If Fox News and the people on it talk about the crosshairs as surveyors marks, a majority of the audience will believe it given a bit of time. It's like every psychological experiment come to life.

 

Her PR team is completely stupid, but I expect nothing less from a woman who has never heard anyone say 'no' nor has her audience ever been that tough to garner respect from. She strikes me as the kind of woman that never wants to admit any wrong and is fearful that doing so is a sign of weakness. What a stupid cow.

 

How is that in any way relevant?

Is there any evidence whatsoever to tie Jared Loughner to Sarah Palin's PAC, let alone the map that they posted? Until there is such evidence, then all you have is correlation, not causation. You can apply that same correlation to a variety of other sources from both sides of the political spectrum. Giffords was targeted (politically) by Republicans because she was a Democrat in a conservative district, and she was targeted (politically) by liberal groups because she was a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat.

There's no evidence that maps published by either side identifying Giffords as a target influenced Loughner in any way. In fact, there is evidence that he may have been fixated on her since around 2007, well before either side identified Giffords as a political target.

With that background, all of the focus on Palin, DailyKos, or any other political group is really misplaced. There's no evidence that any of them had anything whatsoever to do with Loughner's actions. Until there is, we should all be avoiding a rush to baseless judgments.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It is relevant because Smuggler linked to a story about the controversy, but didn't offer his own opinion on the issue.

 

And even then, his opinion of whether they are crosshairs or surveyor symbols is irrelevant. There's no evidence of Palin's map having any involvement in the issue.

I highly recommend this article from Salon. As the author says:

I?ll admit that my first thought on Saturday upon hearing that Gabrielle Giffords had been shot was that it was probably the work of a politically motivated right-wing extremist. And based on my initial conversations with colleagues and friends -- to say nothing of what I observed on Twitter -- I was hardly alone.

...

A day later, though, that?s not exactly how things look. To be sure, Giffords? shooting -- and the shootings of nearly two dozen other people who were in her vicinity -- is a horrific tragedy, and at a certain level, it really doesn?t matter what motivated Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old suspect who is now in custody.

...

Thus, the degree to which post-shooting commentary has focused on the provocative rhetoric of Sarah Palin and other Tea Party favorites doesn?t fully make sense to me. Sure, I understand the idea that Palin?s ?Don?t retreat, reload!? command and Sharron Angle?s talk of "Second Amendment remedies," to pick two of the most frequently cited examples, may have helped in some way to create an atmosphere conducive to some nut picking up a weapon and taking matters into his own hands. And I understand the idea that, even if Loughner had no idea who Sharron Angle is and even if he never saw Palin?s infamous cross-hairs map, it still makes sense to encourage political leaders to ditch violent rhetoric.

But I also can?t help detecting a desire to make Saturday?s shooting something that it doesn?t seem to be ? a chance to say, "See, we told you" to Palin and the Tea Party crowd. Or, as Rep. Raul Grijalva, who represents the district next to Giffords? in Arizona, put it in an interview with the Nation: "Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior." He is far from alone in expressing this sentiment.

This seems unfair. At best, the connection between Palin?s behavior and Saturday?s tragedy is abstract. If anything, the shooting reinforces a point that James Fallows has made: The motives of political assassins rarely have anything to do with mainstream political debate and rhetoric. For now, at least, this seems to be the case with Loughner. This doesn?t mean it?s unreasonable to criticize Palin and others who push the envelope with their rhetoric. But when liberals use this moment to highlight every provocative statement Palin has made, it?s also not unreasonable if she says that her opponents are trying just a little too hard to make her the villain.

Both sides, my brother included, are trying to make this shooting into something that it isn't in an attempt to score political points.

The truth is that the reason Jared Loughner shot Rep. Giffords has nothing to do with politics, except that her involvement in politics brought her to his attention initially in 2007.

It doesn't matter whether those are bullseyes, crosshairs, surveyor symbols, or anything else, because Palin's map has nothing to do with the shooting at all.

Kimball Kinnison

 

After all liberals are dead or converted. Duh.

 

It doesn't matter whether those are bullseyes, crosshairs, surveyor symbols, or anything else, because Palin's map has nothing to do with the shooting at all.


Not this shooting, but the overall atmosphere for violent rhetoric and how much more acceptable it is to advocate violence? It has a great deal to do with that. Twenty years ago, perhaps ten, that map would have finished Palin's career.

 

Except that map doesn't advocate violence. It simply uses martial imagery, which has been part of political campaigns for more than a hundred years. Many common political terms come from military affairs.

Politicians run campaigns (a military term), they attack (another one) their opponents, they use tactics (yet again) and strategy (one more). They target (are we seeing a trend) their opponent. Politics is a form of conflict, and as such military terms are often used as metaphors. This happens by both sides.

If you are going to criticize the violent rhetoric, then you need to focus on the rhetoric from all of its sources. By focusing only on right-wing individuals like Palin (and completely ignoring or dismissing comparable statements and actions from the left), you are proving that your arguments are meant more to discredit a political foe than to actually eliminate violent rhetoric.

If your goal is to eliminate violent rhetoric, then your actions need to be bipartisan, because such rhetoric comes from both sides. If your goal is to discredit a political foe, then your behavior is completely inappropriate, because you are trying to take a tragedy and exploit it for your own political gain. Either way, your behavior here is out of line.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Sorry, KK. I disagree with all of that in general, and while I don't feel like getting into an endless discussion, I'll just say that I've been saying stuff like this for awhile, and the recent shooting doesn't change things one way or the other for me. It has brought various issues up, but that's all.

The rhetoric is far worse on the right than the left, and the rhetoric is far more violence-ridden than anything on the left ever could be in today's world. That's all I have to say about that here. Thank you.

 

Interesting interview... but you would think this friend would have called the police or something a little earlier.

 

Yes, but I'm sure the people who used 'martial imagery' weren't encouraging their supports not to retreat, but to reload. What this stupid cow did was perpetuate an atmosphere of animosity and hate toward people who weren't 'true Americans' (i.e. liberals and Democrats). So, while this shooter wasn't a supporter (though he was a racist, maybe) his views were given credence just by how much 'martial imagery' was out there in the mainstream.

I also love Sarah Palin supporters saying, "Too bad it wasn't Pelosi," and my favorite:

In fairness, Palin's not responsible for what these people say, but she did foment it.

Linky to the page I'm getting these from and the screencaps.

 

To me it's important to understand the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Lougher. McVeigh had a political ideology that seemed entirely stitched together from right wing radio talking points.

Lougher doesn't seem nearly as coherent as McVeigh. He apparently has a messy and miswired brain that became a big echo chamber for any crazy idea that floated his way.

The criticism aimed at talk radio after Oklahoma City seemed a lot more legitimate then than any criticism aimed at the likes of Palin over the weekend. However, in my personal opinion, despite Sarah Palin having absolutely nothing to do with the shooting, the media atmosphere since Obama took office is much more toxic than it was even during the Clinton area. Fox has made the hatred-spewing patter of 90s talk radio much more mainstream and given it a vastly larger television audience.

And as Gonk suggests, pointing fingers at the right wing media mainstream now after Saturday's shooting only fuels the righteous outrage and anger of Fox shock jocks and propels the sense of victimization ever higher. It could even spark violent retaliation aimed at taking revenge on the left for having so horribly and unforgivably and tragically victimized Sarah Palin and Fox News.

As has been suggested, if a Republican Arizona Congressman had been shot by a disgruntled immigrant, instead of merely righteous indignation from the right for being so wronged, it would be Hispanics swinging from trees.

 

Then go ahead and feel smug in your hypocrisy.

As long as you only target one side in your criticism, you only fuel the "them vs us" attitudes, and you do nothing to actually fix the problem. If anything, you add to it. Your attempts to gain political advantage and discredit your opponents are utterly trnasparent as long as you ignore the similar behavior from your own side.

It is an interesting interview. For example:

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a "fake." Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says.

The event seems to be one that Giffords held August 30, 2007.

But really, I don't see anything in that interview that the police could have acted on before Loughner acted out. From the interview:

Loughner would occasionally mention Giffords, according to Tierney: "It wasn't a day-in, day-out thing, but maybe once in a while, if Giffords did something that was ridiculous or passed some stupid law or did something stupid, he related that to people. But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don't remember him stalking her or anything." Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: "It wasn't like he was in a certain party or went to rallies...It's not like he'd go on political rants." But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is "****ing us over." He never heard Loughner vent about about the perils of "currency," as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created.

He appeared to be obsessed with her, but wasn't taking any steps that the police could actually act upon. Even then, according to other reports, Loughner was already known to the Sheriff's office.

There really wasn't more that he could have done.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Then go ahead and feel smug in your hypocrisy.


You know I will, KK. You know I will .

 

Incidentally, here's the full quote from her Facebook page, under the heading, "Warning: Subject to New Politically Correct Language Police Censorship." The italics below aren't mine; they're hers.

Have people on the left used martial-themed imagery too? Sure they have. Even Obama once said, "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun." But it's plain to see that the right takes it to a far greater extreme, because on top of the significantly higher volume of gun-themed imagery, they constantly crow that anyone farther left than they are is a traitor out to destroy the country.

Are they specifically looking to inspire violence? In most cases, probably not. But they are looking to fire people up enough to get them to the polls -- we all know angry people vote more -- and they need to realize that going out of their way to make people angry and demonize the opposition 24/7 gets people hurt.

Remember, this is only the latest in a string of attacks on Democratic Arizona politicians. Not only was Giffords' office vandalized during last year's election, but fellow Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva's office was attacked twice -- once with a powdered envelope, once with a gunshot through the window.

Last year, a man repeatedly rammed another driver -- who had his daughter in the car -- for having an Obama bumper sticker. Even at McCain's concession speech, the crowd booed Obama's name.

They didn't boo Bush's name at Kerry's concession speech. You don't see Democratic supporters running Republicans off the road, shooting up their churches, or firing into their representatives' offices.

Kimball, with all respect, you talk about the left and the right as if they were equivalent, but it's plain to see that they aren't. Yeah, you get groups like Critical Mass, or like those anarchist nuts who protest G8 meetings -- people who protest for the sake of protesting. But those guys are on the fringe, they have no political power, and even on the fringe, they don't try to kill people. The right has fostered a culture of greater anger, resul

 

That lady is some whackadoodle.

 

So, if anyone ever gets shot while playing basketball, it's Sarah Palin's fault.

 

That or if we ever let the military make the rules for basketball it'll become very bloody.

 

It appears this guy was an atheist. One of his favorite books was also the Communist Manifesto. He also believed NASA faked space travel. And he was a white supremacist.


So just like most crazy people: he finds connections in everything.

A clear nutjob.

I pray for the families of the fallen and those who are still clinging to life.

 

Damn Straight. I'm a Republican but when something like this happens it doesn't matter what party you are, it doesn't even matter if your American, **** like this is just plain wrong. In my most honest opinion this guy doesn't deserve a trial hes friggin guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I would take this guy to Congresswoman Giffords front lawn, give a gun to Giffords husband, and turn around. If anyone asked any questions I would say this nutjob tried to escape custody and her husband shot him in self defense, since for all I know it could be true. In some cases, I honestly believe that for some of the most egregious and unforgivable crimes that a penalty should be a loss of constitutional rights... then give them the electric chair.

Why should our money go into taxes to keep this guy fed, clothed, and healthy in jail when he deserves none of the above?

My best wishes and my prayers go to Congresswoman Giffords, her husband, and her family. My wishes also go to the man's prosecutors so they get his ass the death penalty. The only brightness out of this whole god aweful ****** mess is that she is exibiting some good responses to outside stimuli. God willing, I hope she makes a full recovery in the months and years ahead.

Edited for language

 

I just finished reading the link. Chilling stuff; Palin's staff, or possibly Palin herself, immediately deletes anything remotely critical of Palin, but when a comment justifying a nine-year-old girl's murder by comparing her to Hitler comes up, they let it stand, even after it's been called out.

Sick.

 

Because no matter how many horrible things he's done, no matter how much of a monster we may think he is, he's still a human being, and we're still calling ourselves a civilized country.