Since the terrible shooting in Arizona took place yesterday, this post certainly isn’t a breaking news update or anything like that. I started not to write about this, since I have had a bug and haven’t felt 
up to writing, but I wanted to weigh in on the tragic events in Arizona and the aftermath that is sure to come. As of this morning, the total dead from the shooting stands at six; Christina Taylor Green, U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, Gabe Zimmerman, Dorwan Stoddard, Dorothy Morris, and Phyllis Schneck. U. S Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and critically wounded, but the doctors seem to think she will make a full recovery. Authorities are saying that she was the intended target of the attack. Saying this is a terrible tragedy is a vast understatement. I can not begin to comprehend what the victims and their families are going through and my heart is filled with sadness and prayers for them all.
The shooter has been identified as Jared Loughner and there is every indication that he is one deranged individual. His list of favorite books included the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, so that should give us a good indication of his thought process. Even without all of the evidence piling up, his MySpace page, YouTube account, videos, and messages, anyone who starts killing innocent civilians, just because they disagree with the views held by those civilians, has to be deranged. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Muslim killing innocent men, women, and children because of their religious views or an American citizen killing 6 people in an Arizona grocery store because of their political views, it is still the work of a deranged person. I place them all in the same category.
So, where do we stand and where do we go from here? I have already seen some of the efforts by the liberal media to portray this as related to the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, etc. I have seen the video of Keith Olbermann blathering on about how some of the aforementioned people should be held responsible for Loughner’s actions and how they should come out and tell everyone they abhor violence. All it takes to believe this nonsense is to make the leap from a map showing bulls-eyes on congressional districts targeted by Sarah Palin as winnable to a crazy and deranged individual taking a pistol and shooting six people. To put it bluntly, that is exactly what is happening, as there are clear signs that the liberals, both media personalities and politicians, are making a concerted effort to tie this shooting to the highly charged political atmosphere surrounding the 2010 mid-term elections and the aftermath thereof.
What are we likely to see in the coming days, weeks, months? As Matt from Conservative Hideout said, it will be all about control. Instead of bemoaning the deaths of these six individuals and the critical wounding of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the liberals will try to use this tragedy as a tool to advance their political agenda. Indeed, we can see signs of that already. I fully expect to hear loud calls for more gun control. Just because the pistol was purchased legally, don’t expect that to slow down the rhetoric from the left.
My thoughts on this? It’s bad enough that this shooting happened in the first place, but it makes it doubly worse when it is politicized by the left. Let’s place the blame where it really belongs, squarely on the head of Jared Loughner.
Excellent post! I am in total agreement with you.
How disappointing that you would join in the conservative rhetoric instead of just blasting both sides for politicizing this event. Olbermann is an idiot. So is Beck. But so is Palin for using bullseye marks to target specific congressional districts and therefore specific people. Whether that had anything to do with this is completely irrelevant — it was stupid then and it’s stupid now. How about just saying so and waiting on the joining the offensive crap coming from both sides of the blogosphere?
What are you going to say if this guy turns out to be a Tea Party supporter?
As far as I can see, the only side that is politicizing this shooting is the left. Can you show me where the right is guilty? The liberals are the ones trying to tie this to the conservative movement or the Tea Party, with no evidence whatsoever that that is the case. This has nothing to do with conservative rhetoric, Mike. It does not matter if he supported the Tea Party or not, his actions are still despicable. If he does turn out to be a Tea Party supporter, that does not mean the Tea Party is at fault here. The left is fond of trying to portray the movement as a violent, extremist movement, but they have failed thus far. That doesn’t mean they will not continue trying.
You cannot seriously tell me that the Tea Party has not raised the political temperature of this country. The Tea Party candidate for senator in Indiana said that if the election result wasn’t to his liking he would be out cleaning his guns. Sharron Angle was talking about second amendment solutions. These people were running for the Senate!!!!
I will not deny that some candidates on the right have made some statements that are questionable. I could point out several statements made by liberal candidates/politicians that are just as questionable, but I really don’t want to get into a back and forth about that. Yes, the political temperature has been raised, but I wouldn’t lay that completely at the feet of the Tea Party. The left has been more than guilty of that themselves, although they can’t seem to admit it.
Going back to your original claim that the right is politicizing this shooting, I have yet to see evidence of that.
Mike, someone pointed out to me that Obama once made a statement to the effect if “we” come to a fight and the opponent has a knife “we” will bring a gun.
Just to be safe I think we can say all things political have raised the temperature of this country.
Larry,
There may or may not be a correlation with Tea Party rhertoric, with Sarah Palin’s blatant targeting of Giffords with highly charged images and words.But let’s keep our eyes on what really happened in Tuscon: Political figures were targeted for elimination. This wasn’t some random mall shooting. It is appropriate to question eveything at this point.
Mike asks an important question, and you answer it with “it doesn’t matter” if he turns out to be a Tea Party supporter? A little rich, coming from one who, from the beginning and within hours of the Ft. Hood shootings, blamed Islam for another deranged man’s actions. If we are to call for an end to political rhetoric when it comes to unimaginable and sometimes unexplainable tragedies, it’s vital that we cop to it from both sides lest one side begin to see their words be more valid than the other.
Just for the record, I said nothing about Nidal Malik Hasan’s ties to radical Islam until there was clear evidence pointing to that being the reason behind his shooting rampage at Fort Hood. My first post on the subject said nothing about Islam or the fact that Hasan was a Muslim. That post was published the evening of the shooting, November 5, 2009 at around 5:00 PM. My second post did question Hasan’s ties to radical Islam, after it was known that he was indeed a radical Muslim and had shouted “Allah Akbar” as he was gunning people down. That post was published on November 6, 2009 at around 7:00 AM. Here is a search link that shows all three posts. http://www.ldjackson.net/?s=Nidal+Malik+Hasan
This is in direct contrast to the Arizona shooting. Yes, some of our elected officials were specifically targeted and that is a very bad thing. However, within hours of the shooting, the left-wing liberal media was already trying to paint a picture that would lead to this being blamed on the Tea Party and on anyone else who wasn’t on the left. All of this, in spite of the fact that the only evidence that has thus far surfaced shows the shooter to be leaning far left in his political views. How they can make the leap from the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and flag burning to the Tea Party and conservative movement is beyond me, but make it they have.
I do stand corrected on what you said directly although you have condemned Islam wholly in many other posts, despite the fact that 99% of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding. Still, what’s so off-base about Mike (or anyone)questioning a possible correlation of the ratcheting up of nasty, sometimes violent political rhetoric on the right and this action? Communist Manifesto, you got me there. But Mein Kampf? This was the ravings of a criminal genius whose sentiments-anti-Semitism, worship of power and world domination-were Fascist and far right leaning, not far left.
The young shooter is obviously disturbed. I’m just surprised by a country and a political ideology that can make the correlation between violent video games and an increase in violence in children yet stick their heads in the sand when it comes to a correlation of violent images and statements by public people and an increase in violence among adults, especially those most at risk.
Am I understanding you correctly? You think Hitler was a conservative? Nazism may be considered to be far right, but it has nothing to do with conservatives in America or the Tea Party.
To be honest, this is exactly what I have been seeing from the liberal media. The first thing they want to do is start accusing the right, saying they are to blame for this shooting. Again, this is contrary to every piece of evidence know thus far.
As for me condemning Islam, I have made it no secret that I have no love for the religion of peace when it has shown itself to be anything but. That is not the subject at hand, however.
Hitler a Conservative, as it relates to today’s American conservatives? No, that’s not what I was saying. You, however, asserted that it is obvious that this man leans “far left” in his political views and used as your one of two pieces of evidence Hitler’s book, even though Hitler was on the far, far far right of the political spectrum.
It would appear that ascertaining the shooter’s political views at this point from the scant info we have would be very difficult. It isn’t, however, out of bounds to observe that this man is very attracted to and perhaps powerfully affected by extremism, including the extreme comments/encouragements/rhetoric by some of the most visible, famous Tea Party adherents.
Why might somebody (a lot of somebody’s, I’ll acknowledge) make the leap they have? #1 reason- This happened at a political event to a Congresswoman (and others-I haven’t forgotten-)who was specifically targeted by Palin, in a very public forum and with very explicit language
I’ll be the first to say I really don’t care for Sarah Palin and I have done so on several occasions. However, placing the blame on her for this shooting by saying she incited violence by her “targeting” and “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric, is much more of a leap than I am willing to make. She is not the only politician to use such rhetoric and she will probably not be the last.
Hitler was a leftist. Hey, I wouldn’t claim him either.
Mike I do not think Glenn Beck is an idiot. I have never heard him in any way, shape, or form be an advocate for violence. As a matter of fact he takes quite the opposite.
Good piece. As a native Arizonan, this one hits close to home. I spent the day yesterday glued to the TV and the tubes. What a tragedy. I pray for her and her family.
What people fail to realize is that this act is an aberration, but that by continually denigrating our shared value system, we foster an environment where responsibility is abdicated and ultimately rights abrogated.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
The wackos will do what they will do regardless. The only solution is to understand the basis on which our system was founded – and deal with that reality.
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man …” — Robert Winthrop
Well said, Martin. Well said, indeed.
What a horrific tragedy. My heart is just saddened by the days events.
As far as I have been able to garner, there is no indication that this young man was tied to the military or the Tea Party. As a matter of fact, the Stars and Stripes came out and said he was not tied to the military – ever.
However, there is indication that he leaned to the left as stated by one of his college/high school friends. But as you stated, Larry, non of that matters. This young man has lost his way mentally, morally, and ethically and engaged in a horrible, horrible act. He and he alone is responsible. To blame anyone else is just wrong and waste time that could be better spent on helping those that have been profoundly affected by this tragedy.
I think to say that this is not being politicized is silly. There are those in Obama’s cabinet who have stated a while back that they never let a crisis go to waste. So to say or think otherwise is just not wisdom or reality.
I think the answer here is to not give in to those manipulations and for us to stand and do what is right.
Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or anyone else are not responsible for this man’s actions. He alone is.
I also agree that to think that we can create a world where this never happens, ie. remove all gones or whatnot, is a uptopian-type of thinking. Humans are capble of doing bad things. They make mistakes.
The issue here is to let the laws of our land do what they were intended to do and hold this man responsible for his horrific choices.
It really is that simple.
Great comment, Dominique. Especially the part I quoted. As Martin stated above, the wackos are going to do what they will It is our responsibility to deal with that administering the laws of the lands and hold this young man responsible for his own actions. Placing the blame on someone else is not the right thing to do.
Well said Larry. My concern is we tend to knee jerk react when tragic events like this happen and in the process sacrifice liberties for some sort false sense of security. We live in a free society and open society and with that there will be risks associated with that type of system. However the key thing we must always strive for is to maintain the integrity of the system and the cornerstone of ours is liberty. We can pass law after law to protect us from crazy, but it will all be in vain because crazy does not play by the same rules and crazy tends to be unpredictable. So we need to be mindful with how we react, because in the end it’s usually the law abiding citizens that lose their liberty while crazy could care less. Great post my friend.
I think the quote Martin used in his comment is very fitting.
Our laws are made for a moral and religious people. If a person refuses to follow the law and commits a crime such as the shooting in Arizona, then all we can do is follow the law and punish him accordingly. A knee-jerk reaction that takes more liberties away from those of us who are abiding by the law is not the answer.
Larry:
I don’t expect to turn this into a 2nd Amendment conversation, but this?
“Just because the pistol was purchased legally, don’t expect that to slow down the rhetoric from the left.”
I agree-rhetoric is not the answer. But shouldn’t we, as responsible citizens, at least be asking the question “How does a schizophrenic young man obtain a gun legally? What, in the system, might be shored up to help prevent this?”
I can’t see how asking the question to discover possible cracks would infringe on the rights of the 99% of us who are responsible and not mentally ill.
John – I totally agree with you.
First of all, we don’t yet know that he is schizophrenic.
Secondly, I think that is exactly the wrong question. Not everyone who should not have a gun for obvious reasons (mental instability) will be prevented by laws to not obtain one. If they truly want one, they will find a way around the law. Laws can only do so much.
This is a human system and it will never be perfect.
And I think that is the issue here. We think we have the ability to ‘stop’ all of these people from doing things like this. Well, we don’t. That is called free-will to make their own bad (and horrible) choices.
We are not God or gods. We are people and sometimes people do horrible things.
The law is already in place to take care of this young man, and barring any unforseeable problems, he will pay for his crime. My guess is with his life as he killed a Federal Judge and he attempted to kill a Congresswoman.
To now think about taking guns from the law abiding citizenry is backwards thinking. Even if you were able to remove the abiltiy for everyone to have a gun, criminals do not live by the same code or by our laws so they will still get them. And if it’s not guns, it will be other weapons. And then you have citizens who are unarmed and unable to protect themselves when a criminal finds a way to get a weapon.
Also, you have no way to keep the government in check, when and if, they chose to use violence against the citizens.
You’re right, Dominique- I thought I read that he’d been diagnosed as schizophrenic when it’s only a supposition.
As far as him obtaining a gun…The young man had been kicked out of his college when they became alarmed at the increasingly extremist content that he was posting. An example:
“If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist,” he wrote. “If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem. You call me a terrorist.”
No “musts” here. I simply ask: Isn’t this the sort of thing that should raise flags in a background check when buying a firearm?
I wonder where the outrage from the left is on the American citizen shot in cold blood by the Mexican police recently? No comment from Obama. No action from Napolitano or Holder. What, no big deal because he wasn’t a member of Congress?
So, the implication is that if the 2nd Amendment were abolished and Palin and Beck were silenced, this event would have never occurred? If he had used a pitchfork as the democrat proposed, would the left then be pacified? So long as it’s not a gun and doesn’t come from Palin or Beck?
Let’s stop trying to apply rational thought to irrational people. We have people throughout the Obama administration that profess their admiration for Mao Tse-tung. Should we fear they might be inspired to act accordingly?
Crackpots are what they are and no amount of police state or nanny state policies will cure them.
Exactly! Some people are just going to do crazy things and there is nothing we can do except do our best to spot the signs and keep them from carrying out their plans. If the 2nd Amendment is abolished, other methods will be used.
I suppose that Hinkley was Tea Partier too. Nuts are nuts no matter their political persuasion.
By definition anybody who opens up on a public gathering killing 6 and injuring 15-20 more is either nuts or a zealot. Indications are that this guy was a nut but the facts are not all in. Either way it would seem that neither the left nor the Tea Party could ever be held directly to blame. There is always an out for an act of this madness. That said, this type of incident was easily foreseeable and I did say as much early last year in a post called “Tea Party Needs Some Etiquette” in which I wrote:
“I will predict here and now that before this year is out there will be an incident of extreme violence in the name of repressing tyranny by a person claiming to be a Tea Party member. Somehow that incident will be brushed off as isolated by the very same people who hold Obama responsible for the incidents on the Texas military base and the Northwest flight to Detroit.”
Now I do NOT know if this guy was a Tea Party member but I do know that he had strong anti-government views and I do know that the political party strongly espousing similar anti-government views is the Tea Party. And I do know there are significant elements of the TP that support violent means for achieving goals. And I do know that even respected TP leaders who express their views civilly and through appropriate political action have failed to denounce the fringe elements. When that happens the fringe is empowered and violence follows.
I hope to God you are wrong. But in the event your prophecy proves to be true, it does not change the fact that the tea party person who does it is a nut. The Tea Party is not some vile organization that spews hated and violence. I have been part of since it started and have never seen anthing to indicate that. Quite the opposite. Calmness, respect, non-violence are the qualities that are advocate. Those who do otherwise, are not true Tea Partiers at heart. It goes against everything we stand for.
Now the political debate is heated but people are angry and frustrated by a government that appears to not be listening to the masses.
And again it comes down to where the blame should be placed. Squarely on the head of the NUT. This blame game is a waste of everyone’s energy. If I didn’t know better, I would hazard a guess that this is exactly what those who are trying to manipulate us into fighting among ourselves as Americans wants. We are playing right into their hands when we look to place the blame anywhere other than where it belongs; on the NUT!
I remember you writing that and have thought about it often. There extremists on both ends of the political spectrum, but I confess, I find it troubling that the left is always looking for an excuse to cast the Tea Party or other conservatives as violent extremists. You, as well as others, do not seem to want to admit that most of them are just ordinary American citizens who are tired of the direction our country is headed. Therefore, within hours of the shooting in Arizona, there were blog posts and media reports that attempted to cast the blame on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. All of this, even though there was absolutely no evidence to support that claim. I find that troubling.
I think that’s a completely unfair statement. I specifically cited the “fringe element” of the TP and noted the mainstream TP leaders who exercise their right of protest through accepted civil procedures…and who obviously did it damn well given the recent election result. But it’s those same leaders who I accuse of failing to crush the fringe. Instead of denouncing Sharron Angle and Richard Behney, TP candidates for the Senate who advocated second amendment solutions to the problems facing our country, the one person who can lay claim to the mantle of leader of the TP, Sarah Palin, gave these candidates her complete support. Is this tragedy Palin’s fault? Absolutely not!! There is a difference between casting blame for the incident and noting the truth — that elements of the TP have ratcheted up national tensions and the purported leaders of the movement have failed to denounce it. “Above all else, in search of the truth” — well there it is, like it or not.
I’m sorry you feel I am being unfair. You may not be trying to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the Arizona shooting, but the fact remains that a very large number of the liberal media and blogsphere are and it took them very little time to get that blame game started. I think it is despicable that they have and I do not use that term lightly. It’s shameful that they would do so, with no evidence whatsoever.
Concerning your statement about the leaders of the Tea Party not denouncing the fringe element, I will concede that maybe they should have done so. At the same time however, there has been no violence from that fringe element. When I hear anyone asking why the Tea Party hasn’t denounced the fringe element, I can not help but think back to when President Bush was in office. Do you remember how he was portrayed by the media? Do you remember how the fringe groups on the left were calling for his death? I remember that well and I can’t recall hearing the liberals denouncing that rhetoric a single time. And they say the Tea Party has raised the political temperature in this country? If they have, it started a few years ago, before the Tea Party was even born.
This guy was kicked out of school for being unstable. The Army rejected him for “undisclosed” reasons. He should never have been allowed to purchase a firearm. A simple background check would have revealed his history. As far as being “right wing,” people that know him give quite a different description.
I just read on some of the military blogs I read that this kid was rejected by the military because he was not stable.
Agreed about the gun. It would be interesting info to know when he began to deteriorate vs when he bought his gun. Was it before these obvious events, or after?
Left wing, right wing- I think the guy bounced between both, obviously being attracted to the extreme of each. I read what his old high school class mate said of him 4 years ago. Also read what somebody said about his demeanor a couple of months ago:
“Don Coorough, 58, who sat two desks in front of Mr. Loughner in a poetry class last semester, described him as a “troubled young man” and “emotionally underdeveloped.” After another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Mr. Loughner compared the young woman to a “terrorist for killing the baby.” ”
Doesn’t sound like something a leftist would say, but again-it sounds like he attached himself to extremes, regardless of ideology.
Following the narrative, are we? While we were calling for prayers for the family, the left was blaming Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Parties. Keep on trying though. It only helps us in the end.
Sorry, I hit the reply tab for Laurie’s comment. Don’t know why it posted me unrelated to that.
Here is what I have yet to hear… Where were THEIR guns?!?!? I understand that NINE people were shot! NINE! Without knowing all of the details, that means that NINE bullets left the chamber at AT LEAST NINE DIFFERENT TARGETS! When the first shots happened, ALL people in the vicinity should have been reaching for their weapons!
When the People don’t exercise their Rights, they suffer by them!
Thanks for commenting on Political Realities, Brett. It does make one wonder why someone didn’t pull a weapon and put a stop to this madness, but we still do not know all of the details.
I saw an interview with a Dr. that was there and he said the whole thing took a matter of seconds. He also said the crowd was really small and most of the crowd was actually shot/killed. Only a few escaped. It sounds like to me it was so out of the blue and so fast, by the times someone thought to respond, it was over.
I listened to an interview with the father of the 9 year old girl that was killed. His anguish was heartbreaking. Nothing political about it, and it’s disgusting to listen to the media trying to place blame on everybody except the one who pulled the trigger. There should be no left or right in this tragedy, the focus should be on the families and on prosecuting the shooter.
You’re right, One Mom. There should be nothing political about this tragedy.
I live in Az, Since when does it matter that 1 person commits multiple capital murders on the innocent due to their deranged mental state and tying them in to political tea partys and politics…Good grief what are you people thinking!! The shooter is a freak of nature, Damer,Bundy, Son of Sam…He is scum of the earth…..He dropped out of high school and blamed everyone else for his pathetic life….Blame the shooter. not the country that gives you an opportunity to make it.
Thanks for commenting on Political Realities, Jonny. That is what bugged me from the start. Instead of blaming the shooter, the left is doing their best to blame the Tea Party and other conservatives for something they had nothing to do with.
First let me offer my condolences to the victims and their families, my thoughts and heart is with all of those affected by this tragedy.
You are right Larry, the left wasted no time at all in attempting to blame this attack on the Tea Party instead of blaming the person that is solely responsible for this disgusting attack. Meanwhile all I have seen on the conservative blogs is condolences and condemnation for the attack. The left has decided to politicize this attack and the conservatives have been forced to defend themselves for something they had nothing to do with.
I was away from all news sources until and didn’t learn about this attack until around 4:30, when I got on the internet at about 5:00 I found the following comment–which was posted at 2:38–on my blog on a totally unrelated post:
“You morons will have the blood of the Arizona Congresswoman on your hands. The only consolation is that you’ll eventually all shoot each other.”
It is clear to me–and I know this statement is going to upset a number of people here–that there is a certain segment of the population as well as the media that has been hoping for some sort of tragic event like this that they could pin on the Tea Party. And the fact that there first reaction to this was to blame the Tea Party is proof to me of that statement.
I wish I could disagree with you, Steve but I am afraid I can not. The actions of the liberal media and blogsphere speak for themselves.
When I hear people casting aspersions about the Tea Party “fringe” and Sarah Palin “ratcheting up the rhetoric” when did being passionate and disagreeing with a Party’s agenda become disallowed in political discourse? It ticks me off how the MSM gives a pass to the ratcheted up rhetoric from the Left. Do you even understand what the second amendment is for? Defense against both foreign and domestic enemies. While we aren’t in the type of harsh environment that the British were under in Britain when they immigrated here, yet, we have begun a major slide into tyranny over the past 50 years or more due to progressives on both sides of the aisle and if this government gets any more controlling and becomes anymore like a police-state then in all probability some in our government will have become our enemies and use of second amendment rights may be needed to save our Republic. But, the first and best option is to handle disagreements peacefully. Hitler didn’t take Germany all at once, or overnight.
Not that it really matters but, Hitler was not invading Germany. He invaded France and neighboring countries….Hitler was a German Nazi….Much like the Az shooter
I don’t think Teresa was implying that Hitler invaded Germany, but rather that he didn’t gain control of the country overnight.
Sorry, Hitler DID invade Germany… he was an Austrian.
Very true, but Hitler took Germany over from within, not by invasion.
You are correct, LD.
I am surprised that the left has not tried blaming the gun manufacturer. They will eventually get around to it. It is always easier for the Left to blame everyone but the perpetrator.
The main thing to take away is if a Muslim does it we shouldn’t jump to conclusions but, otherwise, it’s Sarah Palin’s fault.
That seems to be what the left would like us to do.
While I have heard some more calls for gun control, the more significant outcry is against Palin, Beck, and the Tea Parties. Then again, I recently covered the efforts so far, by the left, to justify the control of content on radio, TV, and the internet. I think that is the “holy grail” for the “progressives.” If they can eliminate dissenting opinions, it would go a long way towards ending resistance to their agenda.
That seems to be what they are focused on this time, Matt. Looking back at how quickly the liberal media started pulling things out of their hats and blaming Palin, Beck, the Tea Party, etc., I am still shocked. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I find it hard to believe they jumped on this so quickly.
Larry, what a great conversation you have going here. BTW, I hope you are feeling better today. What if those crosshairs were actually a printer’s or surveyor’s mark. But if not, we know there is nothing wrong with “targeting” a state and it’s legislators for political removal. I’m with you. I don’t see anything conservatives have done to politicize this. Your post is right on target:-)
Thanks, Maggie. I am feeling better and was able to go to work.
I find the hyperbole over Palin’s map with the targets on it to be completely grasping at straws. I may not agree with everything she says or does, but to blame the Arizona shooting on her because of a map with some targets on it? Again, that is making quite a leap to connect the two.
So I guess that means that Sarah is the new Bush?
That was in response to Harrison. I thought I clicked on the right reply but maybe I didn’t.
BlackFive wrote a great post on the difference between war and politics. He said, “Both war and politics are struggles between hostile, independent wills, each trying to impose itself on the other. That is the thing. What, then, defines the frontier between war and politics?
The difference between war and politics is not whether the struggle is violent. Writing your will into law means enforcement of that law by police, courts, prisons. All of these things are violence, ranging from threats of the seizure of wealth or life to the actual seizure of these things.
Neither is it the question of whether the wills are irreconcilable. Irreconcilable wills can choose to go their own way in peace.
The difference between war and politics is consent. The two wills consent to abide by a given system for settling the disputes. This consent is conditional upon the performance of duties that the government assumes along with the powers it is delegated. If the duties are not performed, or if the powers are exceeded, consent may be revoked.” Very interesting post and perspective…
http://www.blackfive.net/
LD Jackson,
If I don’t miss my guess, Loughner will turn out to be a paranoid schizophrenic. I see some similarities between Loughner and Russell Eugene Weston, Jr.. Loughner was fixated on grammar and Weston on the ruby red satellite. Anything, absolutely anything, can set off a person with mental illness.
If my guess about Loughner is correct, what were his parents doing, particularly if they did see warning signs? Loughner did live at home.
Not only that, but some reports have it that Loughner had more than his fair share of run ins with Sheriff Dupnik and his department. One has to wonder why the good Sheriff failed to see the signs.
I blame only the shooter. That being said, I remember hearing shouting in the background about killing the other party during more than one of Palin’s speeches during the run-up to the elections. Unlike John McCain, who jumped on anyone calling for killing during his speeches, I never heard Palin chastise her audience. I don’t blame Palin, Limbaugh, Bech or anyone else for the shooting – but on the whole I find a lot more ranting by the right than I do by the left.
Calling for killing one’s political opponent is not a good thing, no matter which side it is from. However, for you to say that it comes more from the right than from the left? I hate to keep beating a dead horse here, but what about all of the violent rhetoric that was directed at President Bush?
I agree with you,Korin. Per usual, the so-called rightees here prefer not to chastise Palin for her incendiary remarks (as she very well should be) but offer apologies and “explanations” for her. When you resort to diatribe and vitriolic comments you open yourself to censure because there is always going to be a nut out there who will agree with what you said and will be double nuts to go and act on it! Sheriff Clarence Dupnik spelled it out very well.
Okay, let’s get something straight. You obviously have not read many of my posts or you would know how wrong you are about me chastising Sarah Palin. I would turn your attention to the post at this link. http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/sarah-palins-gutter-politics/
You act as if conservatives are the only ones who use diatribe and vitriolic comments and you couldn’t be more wrong. What about the remarks made by President Obama himself? What about Nancy Pelosi calling the Tea Party Nazis? I could go on, but I think you know what I mean.
Concerning Sheriff Dupnik, I consider what he did and said to be very foolish. He had no business making the statements he made and in doing so showed a complete lack of responsibility.
I’m sure there were many people directing violent rhetoric toward Bush, which was and is completely unacceptable. However, very few left of center critics have their own talk shows where they shout down anyone who disagrees with them ala Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and to a lesser extent Glenn Beck. Perhaps we who consider ourselves middle-of-the-roaders would have more respect for them if they had more respect for us.
I’m not as worried about the right chastising Sarah Palin as I was about Sarah Palin not chastising her audience when they crossed the line. ANY politician. left, right or center, who allows his/her audience to scream about killing people on the other side without calling them on it is unacceptable in a democratic society.
I would ask you this question. Who is at fault for the left not having their own talk shows where they can shout down anyone who disagrees with them? Do we need to lay that at the feet of conservatives as well? For the record, I seldom listen to the talk shows, as I don’t care for them.
How, exactly, does one “allow” or not allow somebody to do something? What example are you citing?
Really!
You know I finally figured out the problem here.
The debate that we SHOULD be having in AMERICA isn’t happening. But it isn’t happening because the right is too incendiary. It isn’t happening because the left(progressives) and some on the right have forgotten how to debate!
Debating is about having a robust discusion about OPPOSING views. It also is about allowing the good ideas to rise and the lesser ideas to fall. However, in order to be able to debate one has to understand thier (and have) core convictions. They have to be passionate about what they believe and be willing to stand up for it and defend it..
However, if you don’t have these core convictions, you have anywhere to debate from, thus, you do what bullys do. You cheat, you lie, you steal, you manipulate, you intimidate, you create an atmosphere of fear, you divide, you pit people against each other and any other under-handed tactic you can come up with.
Palin’s comment, or any other comments by either side, no matter what they say, should be viewed as just that…comments. Comments to be chewed on, processed, analyzed and then finally accepted or rejected. Rejecting them only reflects a difference of opinion. That’s it.
sorry. I meant to type “you don’t have anywhere to debate from”
Well said, Dominique. We all have our different opinions and we need to understand that it doesn’t mean someone else is evil.
I have to disagree. It depends on what the person you disagree with is advocating. If they are advocating abortion, euthanasia, and turning the Constitutional Republic into some Communist Utopian Mecca then I would say that that person is evil. Promoting evil makes the person evil inside and out.
wow you are a more patient person than I, LD Jackson. Kudos.