Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Not certain what point you are trying to make here, Professor.I have never been more angry or ashamed at the New York Times than at their blantantly evil editorial: But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. Here's some intolerance for you: The New York Times is full of evil people.
I'm not trying to make a point.
The Summer DayWho made the world?Who made the swan, and the black bear?Who made the grasshopper?This grasshopper, I mean-the one who has flung herself out of the grass,the one who is eating sugar out of my hand,who is moving her jaws back and forth instead of up and down-who is gazing around with her enormous and complicated eyes.Now she lifts her pale forearms and thoroughly washes her face.Now she snaps her wings open, and floats away.I don't know exactly what a prayer is.I do know how to pay attention, how to fall downinto the grass, how to kneel down in the grass,how to be idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields,which is what I have been doing all day.Tell me, what else should I have done?Doesn't everything die at last, and too soon?Tell me, what is it you plan to dowith your one wild and precious life? - Mary Oliver
The sign, of course, uses the concept of hunting, instead of war, as an analogy for the election. Surprised Alpha & Co didn't throw that in the mix; after all, Mrs Palin is an avid huntress.PS Chase makes an interesting point. Is the Left any less vile for trying to cast political and socio-economic rivals as "demonizing soldiers, or bloggers , or tax protesters" than the Right it claims is "demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats"?
As a gun owner, I am disturbed by the use of telescopic sight imagery to target political opponents, as by this Tea Party member and Sarah Palin in graphics she used in the mid-term election. Palin, a defender of the Second Amendment who is often photographed with hunting rifles, should know better. There's a saying among those of us who carry concealed: Your gun or your bad attitude--leave one at home. It is not funny to joke about shooting people, and especially not funny when people know you own guns.Palin made it awfully easy for her enemies this time.
I'm setting my sights on the E.R. Hopefully, this is nothing, and I'll be back after a few hours of waiting to find that out.
The politicos are suddenly understanding that the USA was born in rebellion and it remains ungovernable by corrupt Monarchists. Now they are suddenly afraid. Another reason why we need Sarah Palin's talent. She understands how to govern a country like the USA. The mystery is why the other political leaders seem to have forgotten that skill.
Sure it is all fun and games until someone gets their feelings hurt.
Peter, I hope everything is alright.
Maybe we shouldn't have fireworks anymore.Or say "shoot." We need to go back to saying "shit."
All debate posturing and point scoring aside, can't we just agree that maybe a little more love might be in order and a little less hate?
Best wishes, Peter.
We need to go back to saying "shit."Fine, except for those who say it as "shite". It's pretentious.
"...we need Sarah Palin's talent." (sic)Uh...what?!"She understands how to govern a country like the USA."No, she doesn't. She couldn't even last one term as governor of an underpopulated state.It's one thing to hold to conservative ideology, but quite another to be taken in by an insubstantial and obvious charlatan such as Ms. Palin.
Ann Althouse said..."I'm not trying to make a point."My parents always said "it's not polite to point."
Ann Althouse said... I'm not trying to make a point.You characterized that sign as "an expression of violence." If that isn't making (and remaking) a point, I'd like to know what you think it is.
I just love all the suddenly self-proclaimed "decents" on the left...they're only "decent" as long as they get their way..otherwise it's "Snipers Wanted" superimposed over photos of Bush when he was elected....LOTS of gored oxen scattered around...
Having just watched the network news divisions in action this Sunday evening, I must ask: If you are not making a point, just what is it you think you are doing?
"You characterized that sign as "an expression of violence.""Did I? Are you referring to the *question asked* (which isn't an assertion) or are you talking about the whole post that I linked to (which presumably you read)?
Hope all is well, Peter.
Shorter VX:If anyone on the left favors civility he is discredited on others on the left who don't provide it.What's up with the guilt by association? Must be easier than making a credible point, I bet.
Robert Cook said...She couldn't even last one term as governor of an underpopulated state.Except for the inconvenient fact that She didn't quit because she couldn't hack it, but to save the state the expense of fighting frivolous lawsuits filed by ideological leftist partisans for no reason other than to discredit her.
You characterized that sign as "an expression of violence."You're reading the post at face value. The guy holding the sign looks friendly and happy, not deranged or angry enough to cause violence (no violent expression from him). Even though the NY Times for instance would jump on calling this guy and his sign violent, it's a joke to do so (also look at the original post this was a part of).
insubstantial and obvious charlatan such as Ms. PalinRobert - Please. "Charlatan" implies that she is a fake in her beliefs, a con artist. No one seriously believes that Sarah Palin says things she doesn't actually believe - and I mean the stands that she takes, not the silly stuff.Personally, I am often aligned politically with Sarah Palin, but I do not wish to see her run for President - to me she is not qualified, very much like the man in the Office we are currently stuck with for the next two years. Hopefully America will have re-learned about the value of gravitas by then.
the government is... the enemy of the peopleAt least the Times got that right.
I wish you would stop publishing pictures like that before more people get killed.
What's up with the guilt by association?Happens all the time. Sean Hannity was blamed for the Unitarian Church shootings in Knoxville because one of his books was in the shooter's residence.
Let's avoid the double standard. The same people who still adore Abbie Hoffman, the Weathermen, Act Up, even Woody Guthrie, now howl about supposed rough imagery on the Right. Guthrie’s guitar had a motto on it, “This machine kills fascists.” Something tells be he wasn't talking about Benito Mussolini. But he wasn't really talking about "killing" either. A post at www.granitesentry.com.
If some people claimed that Obama was a secret Al Qaeda agent, would we be talking about it? No. So why are we bothering with these equally stupid, entirely political and obviously fraudulent claims of blame against wide swaths of people and entire ideologies for the actions of a madman. I offer that the only reason is because many making the claims have documentation from one university or another claiming that they are well educated and thoughtful. Documentation paid for and widely accepted as meaningful. Something is amiss.
Is it hard to get a hold of a fully automatic M-16 for target practice fundraisers, how about getting one for a person's home gun case?To be clear; I'm not claiming that this fund raiser had anything to do with the recent shooting, because there's no logical connection. I'm just curious about the logistics.
To be clear; I'm not claiming that this fund raiser had anything to do with the recent shooting, because there's no logical connection. I'm just curious about the logistics.Then why don't you do the common sense thing and ask a gun blogger?Answer: Because you're not curious about the logistics.
1jpb - you're detestable
R,What's your problem?Are you referring to my *question asked* (which isn't an assertion)? Sheesh.
Might we all remember metaphor. Might we all remember this country being, in its early days, much more violent than it is now. Might we all remember things are better now than they have ever been.I've looked at this post multiple times, if it didn't have a point I don't know why it was posted.
To be clear; I'm not claiming that this fund raiser had anything to do with the recent shooting, because there's no logical connection. I'm just curious about the logistics.Question: Why don't you ask a gun blogger where someone could actually tell you?Answer: Because you're being cute and aren't the least bit curious.
The discussion continues. I rather like Violets Socks take on this. Note the pictures.
"I've looked at this post multiple times, if it didn't have a point I don't know why it was posted."Just stirring the shit and trying to get everyone all riled up.Are you new around here bub?
I rather like Violets Socks take on this. Note the pictures.I find the map used by the DLC particularly disturbing. Rather than a cross hairs, they use concentric circles denoting nuclear blast radius. They plan on using weapons of extreme mass destruction.
Dad,I'm actually very interested.[But, I did set myself up to use the Althouse line about a *question asked*.]If I hadn't bailed on my FBI friends who went to see an all girls AC/DC cover band tonight, I could have asked them. Instead I'm working away, w/ occasional diversions, e.g. bother y'all.
an all girls AC/DC cover bandShit. I'd gone to see that.
Palin hung in effigy and shot in effigy:Palin hung & shot in effigy
1jpb said... Is it hard to get a hold of a fully automatic M-16 for target practice fundraisers, how about getting one for a person's home gun case? To be clear; I'm not claiming that this fund raiser had anything to do with the recent shooting, because there's no logical connection. I'm just curious about the logistics.No you'retoo damn lazy togoogle it yourself.My question to you is why are you trying so hard to make out that the "violent rhetoric" is only coming from the right wing? When numerous people have pointed out on other posts that the Left is just as if not more vile.Or as Instapundit asked"Are you(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?"
The American democratic process is war by other means. That's the whole point. Given that, it's not surprising that "violent" metaphors crop up all of the time in political discourse. So what?Do people on the right of the political spectrum really expect me to believe that President Obama's reference to The Untouchables is a call to arms? Do people on the left of the spectrum expect me to believe that obviously metaphorical crosshairs on a map are some kind of hypnotic suggestion to kill?Political monomaniacs will attempt to make this issue about their personal white whales. The rest of us should be careful about sharing their delusions.
"Shit. I'd gone to see that."This would have been my fourth outing to see them w/ the FBI folks. And, if everything went well, it would have been the third show where I wasn't kicked out (by security) for being an obnoxious ass.
bagoh2o,"So why are we bothering with these equally stupid, entirely political and obviously fraudulent claims of blame against wide swaths of people and entire ideologies for the actions of a madman"Uhhh, because they appear in the "paper" of "record"? Unjustified, I know, and in an ideal world they would be paid no more attention to than a butterfly fart, but that's not the world we currently inhabit.DADvocate,Really? They look like archery targets to me (nttawwt!)
It's one thing to hold to conservative ideology, but quite another to be taken in by an insubstantial and obvious charlatan such as Ms. Palin. Kookie,Don't you think that your status as an old, hard-line Stalinist kind of disqualifies you from make these kind of statements?You politics are justifiable loathed by almost all Americans.Do you have an iota of self-awareness?
So let me ask this question.Doesn't the fact that the Democrats have launched this vicious assault on Palin tell you who they fear most as a presidential candidate?Or, as one of my favorite people in this world was fond of saying: "Pussy don't lie."Glad I missed the endless posting today. Had to rehearse.But, I think the left has failed. The last time they tried this shit, the internet really hadn't matured, and they didn't face fact checking and general cynicism.
"I rather like Violets Socks take on this. Note the pictures."DAD, I'm glad you linked to Violet Socks, and hope people take the time to read her blog, the Reclusive Leftist.Her politics are inconsequential because she is so DEAD ON in her observations of the idiocy that pervades way too many thought processes these days.Oops, maybe I should have said "spot on"?
Thanks for the well wishes. Turns out as I suspected: the tingly sensation in my left arm is being caused by a damaged nerve, but I wanted a doctor to rule out the more lethal possibilities. My wife would have killed me if I had a heart attack and died in the middle of the night.
Thank God you are ok peter. You always have to check out that tingly feeling in your left arm.So lay off the cheese fries ok?
peter hoh said...My wife would have killed me if I had a heart attack and died in the middle of the night. Aint love a beautiful thing?
"Are you new around here bub?"Every day I wake up is new for me, Trooper. But for here, only new at talking. And don't get me wrong, I like Ann. I like shit stirring.But that was a major backtrack answer from her, the post not having a point. Least ways to my mind.
Really? They look like archery targets to meI was 11 during the Cuban Missile Crisis and lived within the thermonuclear blast range of Oak Ridge, TN, a primary target. I spent a lot of time looking at maps with blast damage rings trying to figure out if you could/would survive.
Althouse's post about war metaphors reminded me of some hot water I got into several years ago with a very good friend. In an email I used the expression "call to arms", and she assumed I was looking for a fight. My intention was more along the lines of "a call to loving arms"...more like a hug, really.Now if we had been face to face, that would have been totally clear because of voice inflection and body language. Or perhaps I never would have used that phrase at all because it lends itself to writing more than to informal verbal communication.Anyway, that was an excellent post, and on so many levels for me.
It's allGoogle's Google's fault!From Steven Den Beste via Instapundit
Remember Death of a President? Was that inflammatory? Bet it would be if the subject was Obama instead of Bush.
Hey Ann, several on the right side of issues would make the claim that Palin's map was populated with surveyors marks.I think that's disingenuous, counter productive, and not the free speech argument I would think the right would want to champion.Be a proud supporter of the 1st Amendment, be a proudly tenured law professor, be a proud defender of political rhetoric, be a support of truth and clarity, andcall those marks what they clearly were meant to be, crosshairs and bullseyes, not surveyor's marks.Or maybe you did that in this post.
Penny said: DAD, I'm glad you linked to Violet Socks, and hope people take the time to read her blog, the Reclusive Leftist.I agree that her blog is great, but oh my God do not try to sort your way through the comments if you want to keep your sanity. It's like every bad parody of a woman's studies class ever imagined in there. - Lyssa
Rielle Hunter is posting here now?
Does the word "metaphor" ring a bell?Political campaigns have used hunting metaphors ever since politics began. Are we going to allow the utterly dishonest tyrannical loonies who pretend to take everything literally to curtail this manner of speech as well?Of course, the biggest irony in this whole circus is that Sarah Palin's oft cited graphic did NOT use ANY hunting symbolism!
R.L., with a name like mine, I shouldn't be teasing anyone about their name. Didn't mean it to be unkind.
"call those marks what they clearly were meant to be, crosshairs and bullseyes"I have a better idea...Click here and educate yourself (and then support the 1st Amendment anyway).
It's one thing to hold to conservative ideology, but quite another to be taken in by an insubstantial and obvious charlatan such as Ms. Palin.For example, if you hold to conservative ideology, Cook will call you an evil supporter of criminals and thieves. On the other hand, if you're taken in by Sarah Palin, Cook will call you a misguided idiot.So it is easy to see that, yes, there is indeed quite a difference between the two.
Arguing over whether the marks are "gunsights" or not is silly. They look like them to me, but who cares? Showing a sight over somebody or something means "this is a target"; it is used that way by everyone.Nobody -- not Palin, not the nut who shot up the supermarket, and certainly not the lefties who are now trying to score political points -- believes they signify a threat of violence.So why are we talking about it?
I made the same point, but in two parts.
Today was a weird day:A brother, that I never met, died.I now have two sisters - one I've met once (the famous singer) and one I've never met.I don't know how I feel about any of it.Being a foster child is weird.
“Arguing over whether the marks are ‘gunsights’ or not is silly.”Not really…Not when the computer generated symbol in question has -- ever since June of 1993 -- born the name “Position Indicator” (as opposed to “Bullseye”).Or, do words not really matter? Oh, SHOOT -- the Loony Left loses either way! ;-)
I do find it interesting that Violet Socks calls "taking back America" dangerous and bad. I wonder what she thought about that when Democrats and leftists were taking back America it was safe and good. How soon we forget. When it's convenient."
Today after a few hours at the museum enjoying the crowd at the final day of king Tutankhamun exhibit, followed by a leisurely lunch at the museum's restaurant, my sights were set much later on a celeriac salad.
peter hoh said... R.L., with a name like mine, I shouldn't be teasing anyone about their name. Didn't mean it to be unkind.I Didn't think you did. The R stands for Richard. Going through life as a straight man known as "Dick Hunter" you, as with your name, develop a good sense of humor.
Excellent point 27183."Be a proud supporter of the 1st Amendment, be a proudly tenured law professor, be a proud defender of political rhetoric, be a support of truth and clarity, andcall those marks what they clearly were meant to be, crosshairs and bullseyes, not surveyor's marks."And this post isn't the answer to that, nor the last word on this. Your request is right down Althouse's alley. Wonder if she's working on it as we speak?
Not when the computer generated symbol in question has -- ever since June of 1993 -- born the name “Position Indicator” (as opposed to “Bullseye”).Yes, I've heard that argument. It isn't a winner.
The Coffee Party hasn't been on the scene lately?Wouldn't be surprised if this gives them some impetus to get their tales in gear.
Chip, I'm looking forward to seeing that exhibit. It comes to my town next. We closed Geometry Playground today. Hope you get a chance to see that exhibit someday.
Revenant said... Not when the computer generated symbol in question has -- ever since June of 1993 -- born the name “Position Indicator” (as opposed to “Bullseye”). Yes, I've heard that argument. It isn't a winner.So explain why it's bad for Palin to put cross hairs on her opponents, but when the DLC and the DCCC paint bullseyes on their opponents it's not? Aren't both a method indicating a target?
Yes, I've heard that argument. It isn't a winner.It matters not whether it is “a winner”, it's an objective fact. And, once upon a time in a land far, far away, objective facts ruled supreme. Oh, how I long to return to that land!Even Violet Socks noticed that this entirely innocuous and totally misrepresented symbol was included in her “Java map-building program”.This computer generated symbol is exclusively reserved for locating a spot on a map -- nothing more.
Not when the computer generated symbol in question has -- ever since June of 1993 -- born the name “Position Indicator” (as opposed to “Bullseye”).Yes, I've heard that argument. It isn't a winner.It would be if Palin hadn't referred to them as being bullseyes.
“It would be if Palin hadn't referred to them as being bullseyes.”And, where did she say that? Got a citation?
Re:http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/29677744457Okay, got me there.But, seriously...Did you really expect her to refer to it as a “Position Indicator”.Do you think the Tweet World would have understood? Let's call that "Poetic License".
Remember according to the left putting crosshairs on a map is hate speech.Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy is free speech.
It's clear what she meant in the Tweet. They/she targeted them with bulls eyes. It's a perfectly legitimate metaphor. She shouldn't be backing away from it now and calling it something else. Makes her look lame.
Remember according to the left putting crosshairs on a map is hate speech.Irrelevant unless you have laws against hate speech. It's doubtful this would meet the definition of hate speech in a country that has hate speech legislation.
"Makes her look lame."I'm pretty sure you would say that no matter what she said.
Hate Speech is a euphemism for ever advancing censorship.Anything disliked by the State become defined as hateful.
Not at all. She meant what she said and it's okay to say it. Trying to weasel out of it at this late date is lame. When the rubber hits the road most politicians turn around and and try to say that's not what the meant etc.
Hate Speech is a euphemism for ever advancing censorship.Anything disliked by the State become defined as hateful.Not in countries with hate speech legislation. It's not the state that makes the case. The bar for determining hate speech is set pretty high and very specific.
SBVOR @ 1/9/11 11:53 PM:I clicked on the link in your post and noticed it has an image of an old WWII poster modified with a glove and with the caption:"Dims: You rammed ObamaCare down out throats. Now WE will ram it up your ASS!"I can imagine how our Dem Congress'folk will take that:FBI: Hello, FBI.Congressman Smith: Yes, I've come across a disturbing image which is making me fear for my safety.FBI: What kind of image?Congressman Smith: It shows a lady with a glove on her hand and a reference to having ObamaCare shoved up the ass of Democrats. I think I am being threatened with - I, I think they call that "fisting"? That has to hurt.FBI: *rolls eyes* Yes, sir. We'll get right on that. In the meantime, stay seated - you can't be fisted while you're sitting.Congressman Smith: Thank you - and thanks for the tip. I'm sitting down right now.
“She meant what she said and it's okay to say it.”1) Nope…If she had doubled down, you and yours would be hitting her with both barrels (so to speak).2) Really? Are you a certified mind reader? Do you seriously think using the term Position Indicator in a Tweet was a viable option? She took the only sensible option (then AND now).
Don't be sliiy Alcuria Dems love fisting, they even want to teach kids how
I wonder what's become of all those people who like to say that a mass terrorist attack once in a while is no big deal, something only bedwetters worry about. They seem to be laying low so far.
Irrelevant unless you have laws against hate speechIrrelevant in a court of law yes, But in the court of public opinion it's very relevant.When it's the Right doing it the Left screams it's your right but should know better than to say mean things.When the Left does the same thing they scream don't restrict my free speech.Typical Alinsky tactics.
What Ms. Palin has done or you folks seem to be doing is making her the subject/victim of this tragedy.She wasn't there but this lunatic had a radio playing in his head that was all static and couldn't comprehend the rhetoric. Chase is "angry and ashamed" over a comment in a newspaper that he often says he doesn't read. When that paper notes the virulent aspect of discourse that is 24/7 talk radio and politicians for a 2nd amendment solution, and idiotic signs like those pictured in this thread, the NYT is, frank right on point.Above all, history is full of examples of what happens when civil debate turns into ugly rhetoric and the politics of hate and finger pointing become the topic du jour....You aren't the victim here......
HDHouse,Can you name any point in American history (or world history) when discourse was any more "civil" than today? No, you can’t -- it never happened.Dims decry the current state of the discourse for one reason and one reason only -- they no longer control every single vector for the dissemination of information and, as a direct result, they are now LOSING THE DEBATE -- big time!November, 2012 cannot come soon enough!
So explain why it's bad for Palin to put cross hairs on her opponentsI never said it was. I just said "they're not crosshairs, they're Unicode position markers" isn't a winning argument.A winning argument is "yes, they're crosshairs, and no, no rational person thinks that means "kill these people".
Except for the convenient self-aggrandizing myth that (Palin) didn't quit because she couldn't hack it, but to save the state the expense of fighting frivolous lawsuits filed by ideological leftist partisans for no reason other than to discredit her."R.L.Hunter...I fixed your quote for you for more accuracy.
Got any links to proof it's a myth Cookie? that is real proof not just some pundit's opinion.
at RL...you got any proof that Cook is wrong?at SBVOR...you note "dissemination of information"...didn't you mean dissemination of opinion? What you wrote is precisely the point and the way you wrote it is in the crosshairs of what I meant.It is the civility that is at issue here. .. the indiscrimate use of phrases and discriptors that are off mark and off color. Liberals become "libtards". Conservatives become "Brownshirts". We all do it and we shouldn't and when we all do it some of us, in the midst of all the static, start to loose touch with what is real and what isn't. At that point they start to loose the sense that the other fellow will ever feel anything either from insult or, in this case, bullet. If you read the link I provided and provide here, perhaps this would make some sense to you. I would hope so....No feelings......
Ann Althouse said... I'm not trying to make a point.Since you asked a question, why don't you answer your own question. Did you, or did you not find expressions of violence at the Tea Party event that day?
Surprised Alpha & Co didn't throw that in the mix; after all, Mrs Palin is an avid huntress.He didn't have to. Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe is already saying that Palin should come out and apologize for the rehtoric she used during the election. So a bona fide mentally unstable person goes on a rampage and the first thing the lefties do is assign blame to conservatives. Way to stay classy kids.
hdhouse said Above all, history is full of examples of what happens when civil debate turns into ugly rhetoric and the politics of hate and finger pointing become the topic du jour.Were you really able to type that without any sense of irony at all? Seriously?
Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...Shorter VX:If anyone on the left favors civility he is discredited on others on the left who don't provide it.Civility only becomes part of the Demo vocabulary when, "I Won", passes out of it.1jpb said...Is it hard to get a hold of a fully automatic M-16 for target practice fundraisers, how about getting one for a person's home gun case?Now everyone knows where PB&J gets his take an out-of-context example and portray it as typical of someone you dislike tactics.
Seems to be an excellent case for an insanity defense.On the other hand, asking forgiveness on your Face-page before the fact is not the act of a crazy person.
Loughner was obviously a leftoid boy.No job, lived with his parents, probably watched the 'Daily Show' every day. Sounds like your average Kos kid. He forgot to yell 'Allahu Akbar' while he was shooting so that everyone would 'withhold judgment'.
Trying to shame us into silence House?For what, Pointing out that the Left's rhetoric is just as bad if not worse than the Right's?For calling attention to bias by the media insinuating responsibility for this tragedy lies solely on the Right? Specifically that a map targeting political opponents and the quotes associated with it are plastered all over the news while just as damming quotes from the left are virtually ignored.The Right gets slandered by the Lefts lying by omission, but we're not allowed to defend ourselves because it might take something away from the victims.Nice try but I'm not falling for your guilt trip.
In late to this discussion as usual, glad someone remembered "Death of a President" moviein 2006, featuring Bush being assassinated. Don't forget "Checkpoint," a novel widely reviewed in the mainstream press about a man planning to kill Bush. Go to Kos and search for "Bushitler" and there's 143 returns right away. Cooling the rhetoric goes both ways. Until the left acknowledges that for eight years it stoked the fires, it shouldn't be complaining about the heat now.
you got any proof that Cook is wrong?So she's guilty until proven innocent?
@RL...I'm not guilty enough to take it on a trip.I see by your reaction that you are barely under control so I won't poke you as I'm tempted to do. That would be far to easy which again is the point.Look at Lars' comment above yours "Loughner was obviously a leftoid boy." That ilk of obervation says it all and makes my point precisely. I think Loughner is a Sarah Palin in pants but I would never say it because it isn't true and it serves no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.There are better ways to discuss things and better coins of phrase. Got it now RL? Lord knows I'm trying to make it simple.
When is the New York Times going to do a story on the large volume of comments from liberals wishing death on their political opponents?When will they reprint diaries from the Daily Kos?When will they reprint postings from the Huffington Post wishing death on Vice President Cheney?When will they print the fact that the number of violent incidents perpetrated by Tea Partiers is zero? (but the number of incidents where they are blamed by the left is now in double digits.)
Sen Kerry just said on Imus that one of the reasons this guy was angry was the House Republicans trying to repeal the health care bill.Also he says tone down the rhetoric.Imus, the old queen, is saying it's very important to tone down the rhetoric, starting with his own.Old age has not treated Imus well.
All the arguing about bull's eyes and position indicators is ludicrous. We all use such imagery and metaphors all the time and we all know it.A paranoid schizophrenic or paranoid personality imagine stuff that isn't there or grossly misinterpret what they see and hear. A person standing on the corner waiting for the bus is spying on them. Words overheard is someone talking about them. A music album by The Beatles is telling them to commit mass murders.Get over it. This is a failure of the legal system and mental health system that make is easy for criminally insane people to walk the streets.
"I'm not trying to make a point."Please, there is always a point to posting something. Always.Obviously I don't know what you had in mind but the only one that jumps out at me is continuing to stir the pot about so-called "violent" rhetoric creating actual violence.If that's not it, well, sorry for misunderstanding, but again, there's always a point.
Is it hard to get a hold of a fully automatic M-16 for target practice fundraisers, how about getting one for a person's home gun case? :Assuming that one lives in a state that allows Class 3 weapons in the hands of private citizens all that stands in your way is your local law enforcement (must sign the ATF forms), the BATF, background checks, and having 20K or so floating around to purchase a used full auto in decent shape. You would also have to find someone willing to sell one.
When will we see an editorial by the New York times condemning political violence committed by leftists such as:Lee Harvey OswaldTed KaczynskiBill AyersJames LeeAnd as far as I can tell, no report by the NYT on this:"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. Liberals regularly attack violently, wish death upon, and fantasize about attacking their political opponents.It is well documented. Yet the New York Times has never editorialized on it.
"Sen Kerry just said on Imus that one of the reasons this guy was angry was the House Republicans trying to repeal the health care bill.Also he says tone down the rhetoric.Imus, the old queen, is saying it's very important to tone down the rhetoric, starting with his own.Old age has not treated Imus well."Started to watch today but turned it off after his insipid opening. Imus is a castrati.
DADvocate said... "... a failure of the legal system and mental health system that make is easy for criminally insane people to walk the streets."I might point out that he wasn't criminally insane until he opened fire. It is very much the argument gun advocates make - all gun owners are law abiding citizens. Only criminals have guns illegally and gun owners by definition can't be criminals. When a law abiding citizen opens fire only then is he a criminal and no longer a legal gun owner...so he doesn't count.See?
"A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her "tweets" in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as "stupid and unintelligent."We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.Parker "tweets" that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became "reclusive" after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."
You can't refute my argument so you accuse me of losing control.How am I losing control, by pointing out bias in the media?Or are Left and Right insults now?
Instead of arguing about which sign and what speech is violent or whatever why don't we cut the crap and just admit none of this had anything to do with what this nut did?
soph·is·try [ sóffistree ] (plural soph·is·tries)noun Definition: 1. flawed method of argumentation: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest2. philosophy Same as sophism3.see HDHouse's post on guns at 1/10/11 7:07 AM
Thanks to the gubmint for allowing insane people to walk around free until they kill 10 people or so.Your average human, like say a kid in a community college algebra class, can tell this guy is gonna kill someone, but our betters tell us we can't tell that at all, and the lunatics must be free until they actually do harm somebody, and then we can only keep them locked up for a little while.Because they're crazy, and don't belong in prison.
When a law abiding citizen opens fire only then is he a criminal and no longer a legal gun owner...so he doesn't count. And, HenHouse, your conclusion is...Assume all citizens are potential criminal and take away their weapons in a pre-emptive strike?
Are you referring to the *question asked* (which isn't an assertion) or are you talking about the whole post that I linked to (which presumably you read)?Quoting your earlier post:Any expressions of violence at the Tea Party today? Mmm. Yes. Consider this one:You asked the question and you answered it "Yes."
I think targets should be put on the Atlanta Falcons. Go Green Bay Go! All this kvetching about hate speech and cross hairs makes me wonder what people who find free speech so horribly messy would think of the alternative, if they were allowed to express an opinion of it, that is.Peter, I'm glad you're in fine fettle.
I have a large collection of pictures showing various representations of GW Bush with bullet holes in his head, Bush with crosshairs superimposed on his face, Bush and Cheney with nooses around their necks, and other delights. Some of these were on placards carried by peace-loving peace marchers in peaceful towns like San Francisco and New York. There is no record of the NY Times or any of the other lefty house-organs expressing any disapproval. Why is that? Quite simply, the folks who write for these outlets are pretty smart people and they all know perfectly well that such imagery has no effect on people's behavior. If they actually thought it did, they would have to condemn people they agree with. So, they have to argue that only images produced by certain types of people have an effect, and all violence committed by anyone anywhere can be traced to those people. Smart people twist themselves into incredible knots in the service of inconsistent and transparently silly arguments.
Sen Kerry just said on Imus that one of the reasons this guy was angry was the House Republicans trying to repeal the health care bill.BobKerrey, it turns out on review, the other Kerry.
That shooter would have lived a normal and productive life but for signs like that. /sarc.
It's a perfectly legitimate metaphor.Indeed. Our speech would be pretty boring if we removed all metaphors. Every time we dig into one of these characters, we find out that they were pretty much crazy. Is there some reason we have to keep putting this stuff on people who are not?
Don't worry, our congressional leaders will move to take guns away from us all. We cannot be trusted any more. But we can trust them.
I have been wondering why Judge Roll, a nonpolitical judicial officer, was at a political event for a Congresswoman.The Wall Street Journal has the answer in an article this morning.Judge Roll was waiting his turn in line, just like other citizens, to speak to Ms. Giffords. He was asking no special treatment. He just happened to be at the front of the line when the shooter began firing.
The whole show of trying take advantage of this tragedy by publicly projecting the psycho killer into some political group without a shred of evidence still makes me depressed about how low people will stoop in the name of politics. No crisis wasted, indeed.Peter: Glad to hear it's not your ticker.Pogo: Gotta say I disagree with you about locking people up for being mentally ill on only the government's say-so. Sounds like 1950 USSR or modern China to me.
Fred, I have no doubt that some Representatives from the Northeast will propose gun restrictions because of this shooting, but none of them will be successful. They know that already, but they will do it anyway in order to show their constituents that they are "doing something" about this shooting spree.
"I have been wondering why Judge Roll, a nonpolitical judicial officer, was at a political event for a Congresswoman." Political Fundraiser?
As to the "bullseyes", they aren't even on human images and I certainly find them less suggestive of violence than say this Wisconsin Democratic Party image.
More heros emerge, and ought to get some attention:61 year old Patricia Maisch, who took away a gun clip from the shooter as he was trying to reload:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html
"Pogo: Gotta say I disagree with you about locking people up for being mentally ill on only the government's say-so."I'm talking about psychiatric hospitalization, long term.Not jail.The sheriff in AZ mentioned this in his conference. A lot of homeless people are like this guy.
I might point out that he wasn't criminally insane until he opened fire.You don't have to by criminally insane to be committed to a psychiatric hospital. A psychiatrist can temporarily commit you by finding you to be a danger to yourself or others.It used to be easier to commit someone. Maybe we've gone to far in the other direction.
Many examples of leftwinger hate:http://tinyurl.com/2aucavx
Someone has put an ice storm target on Atlanta. All activity is cancelled. When we awoke at 6:30 the U S District Court website said a 2 hour delay was in effect on scheduled hearings, but by 9:30 all was closed down for Monday. At this rate we can try out ice boating here this weekend.
Professor;Is this an attempt at catharsis? Is it working?
David said... "Judge Roll was waiting his turn in line, just like other citizens, to speak to Ms. Giffords. He was asking no special treatment. He just happened to be at the front of the line when the shooter began firing."Actually you are wrong David. the Judge was there to speak with the Congresswoman and urge her to do what she could to speed along judicial appointments as his court is seriously short of judges and the process has been locked up by republicans in the senate. although not a senator, she had so voice with senators and he was asking her help. He called ahead to advise her staff that he would like to speak with her.
Pogo, I wish there was some way to deal with psychiatric patients -- or people who ought to be psychiatric patients -- who refuse treatment or drop off their meds -- or just can't be treated effectively. Yes, there were abuses under the old system, but the pendulum swung too far in response.
"A psychiatrist can temporarily commit you by finding you to be a danger to yourself or others."Only for a brief interval.It's shameful how we let these people become animals in the street.
Friends of the family have a son with schizophrenia who was a little bit older than me. One day he went to church and shot dead four people, including the priest saying mass.The parents had begged for help, saying he was dangerous, but were turned away because he had not harmed anybody. Yet.They never forgave themselves.
Someone has put an ice storm target on Atlanta. We have 4 inches of snow here in Little Rock. (that may not sound like much to the Wisconsin folks but for us it's a ton.) So, I'm enjoying a nice snow day, but hoping it doesn't turn into 2 or 3, because that's a lot of leave to burn.
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.” I stole this from HonestAmerican over at biggovernment.com. I believe it should be repeated often.
Mad as Hell, we get it. The rhetoric of violent imagery isn't confined to one party. Duh. Not every person on the left is playing the blame game.
During the MSNBC coverage, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post asserted that "while most of the political violence of the 60s and 70s came from the left, it is now found on the right."That was a stunning acknowledgment, that the left had been the politically violent ideology so recently. I don't recall media pressure for Democrats to tone down their followers, or distance themselves. In fact, extremists such as Bill Ayers became respected figures among liberals. A politician could launch his career in the living room of such a politically violent leftist, and pay no price when he sought the presidency. The left was never required to look in the mirror or to even acknowledge its violence. That's what made Robinson's backdoor acknowledgment so surprising.
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post asserted that "while most of the political violence of the 60s and 70s came from the left, it is now found on the right."Of course there is no actual evidence that "most" violence comes from the right.Especially a few months after an Al Gore follower emptied clips into the discovery channel...
Got a source for that statement House?“He was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik of Pima County, Ariz., adding that Judge Roll had been on his way home from Mass at Tucson’s ornate St. Augustine Cathedral and had stopped by to see Ms. Giffords. Or are you just lying?
CJinPA said... "That was a stunning acknowledgment, that the left had been the politically violent ideology so recently."Recently? that was 40 years ago. I suspect before you were born.
Jay,The evidence of right-wing violence is shaky, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's been more common in recent years than on the left. It's just so hard to measure.For example, the D.C. snipers. The adult was steeped in anti-American, racist, Muslim rhetoric. We don't know which party he belonged to, but we can guess.The Az. sheriff who just called his state the capital of bigotry and hate...what affect does that rhetoric have on the illegal immigrants committing violent crimes in the state? None? A little? Anyway, in all of the finger-pointing and exploitation of this tragedy, I haven't heard anyone but Robinson acknowledge left-wing political violence. It's a milestone for MSM.
R.L. Hunter said... Got a source for that statement House?Or are you just lying?"yes I do asswipe. Read the FBI Agent Affidavit in the Indictment. It is right there word for word.Or don't you believe the FBI and affidavits? Why are you like this? Seriously. What led you to be the way you are? You just hurl insults and invective without regard for truth or facts.
@HD, well, I was around then.And Gene Robinson is lying, as usual. He keeps trying to conflate Tim McVeigh with legitimate right-of-center politics. I should have thought that last November 2nd told him what the electorate thought of his feeble arguments.He's just wallowing in his hateful bitterness, much as you are.
Gotta say I disagree with you about locking people up for being mentally ill on only the government's say-so. Sounds like 1950 USSR or modern China to me.I agree, but what are you supposed to do?What if the person sitting next to you at work, in the classroom, or your neighbor is acting strangely and in your gut, your intuition is screaming at you...danger...Danger...DANGER!!?Who do you tell? The police? They can't do anything because person is just acting strange. That isn't a crime. So, we wait until something horrific happens before there can be any intervention.What if you were able to get the deranged person some help and put them on the path to sanity? It might save lives including that of the ill person. Could we support forced treatment?Probably not, because the potential for abuse and targeting of those who are NOT really ill, but who are political enemies would be huge. Just as we are witnessing now with the witch hunt against Palin and the Tea Party, the potential for coerced incarceration for 'wrong thinking' is more horrific than letting a madman lose in the community. The Leftists would be slavering at the ability to create gulags for those that they disagree with and with those who are in their path.The choices are bad in all directions.Frightening, isn't it?
"Recently? that was 40 years ago. I suspect before you were born."Actually, HDHouse, Bill Ayers' wife was supporting cop-killers in the 1980s. Mumia Jamal is another case of a violent behavior following a steady diet of left-wing rhetoric. So, yeah, not very "recent" but more recent than many people are aware. The right has McVeigh and Eric Rudolph from the 90s. As for the violence of Mulsim extremists, we could have a field day matching their rhetoric up with the left's. But that's for another day. I didn't say Robinson was totally accurate. But his admission of left-wing violence was out of the ordinary for MSM.
It would be an interesting study to evaluate "violent" rhetoric with actual incidents of violence--First issue is to determine and evaluate what constitutes violent rhetoric and youu can do some content analysis that has a modicum of academic credibility. The difficulty is demonstrating causal link between the content of that rhetoric and the actions of the person perpetuating that violence--a much more difficult. They you would have to assign some kind of ideological niche for each case--also very difficult because IMO the third standard deviation types are more alike than different irrespective of which side of the political spectrum they start on. Seems to me all we would end up with is some sort of correlation; but absolutely no causal links except possibly in a very few number of cases.In short--I dont think it can be done. And absent some causal link, all of the overheated rhetoric is just that and not worth anything but to reinforce one's existing prejudices.
A little generosity on each side towards the other, particularly trying to understand what an opponent may be saying who isn't as skilled at communicating as you are. Getting used to the idea that we want to debate the strongest arguments, not trash the weakest. Most of us on both (or more) sides are not bad people, although sometimes we express ourselves badly or don't live up to our own standards. I know I don't always. Although I agree with Dems more often and more topics, Republicans and Democrats have ideas that are basically pretty reasonable and can be debated by reasonable people. Ideologues are more in fashion it seems, but I think it's time for moderates and centrists to get more into the discussion. And if I'm not being very clear myself, I'll bet there's folks on both sides reading who still agree. You know, us libtards and Republithugs.
Big Mike said... "He keeps trying to conflate Tim McVeigh with legitimate right-of-center politics".As you keep trying to lump everyone to the left of Attila the Hun into one basket?Works both ways.
That political sign means nothing except let's get these particular folks out of office and control of our country. That gentleman was not trying to incite anyone to using their guns to kill actual animals.Perhaps the human race is losing the ability to communicate. From elderly mother-in-law to the savvy hipster on his facebook, passive-aggressive is the rage.
I subscribe to phx's comments--we tend to focus on the extremes of the arguments and conflate those views with the views of those in the middle of the political spectrum--I suspect most folks in the middle are more alike than different.
Only for a brief interval.Sometimes, that's enough. I think it was up to 2 weeks in Tennessee when I worked in mental health.That's terrible about your friends, Pogo. Sometimes doctors and other authorities turn a deaf ear to parents and friends. Doctors view themselves as the experts and may dismiss the layperson's claims and observations.
@Peter Hoh:I don't want to make this guy out to be a "man of the left" - and I don't think most conservatives do either, but we want to make it crystal clear that he was sure as hell not any kind of conservative - we're not going to accept the smears of the NYT and the Pinhead Sheriff of Pima. On a related note, what say the pot advocates who deny that heavy and sustained use can make one paranoid? But seriously, this was a substance-abusing, conspiracy theorizing (inc 9/11 truther), grammar-obsessed, paranoid whackjob - he does not "belong" to either party or side of the debate, but inasmuch as leftoids try to pin him on us, we will push back.
Ideologues are more in fashion it seems, but I think it's time for moderates and centrists to get more into the discussion. I don't think you have to be a traditional centrist to believe as you do, that democrats and republicans both have ideas that should be debated, rather than simply hurling insults. You can have a serious liberal and a serious conservative in a serious argument where we're all friends afterwards, versus people who call themselves "moderates" and have such ability. It's all in how you view the otherside, not in your own political beliefs.
have such abilityHave no such ability.
re editorials: dont know who this Robinson guy is; but like any other editorialist from the WAPO, the NYT, the WSJ or the CSM--do we read editorialists to be informed? or to just reinforce our stereotypes--I go with the latter interpretation: if we rely on a paid editorialist to tell what what we should believe, we are3 fucked up beyond belief.
Easy House your losing control.the relevant part of the affidavit is"U.S. Marshal Gonzales reports that Ron Barber, a staff person for Congresswoman Giffords who was present at the event, stated that Judge Roll attended the event and sought to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, and spoke with Mr. Barber about issues related to the volume of federal cases in the District of Arizona; Judge Roll expressed his appreciation to Mr. Barber for the help and support that Congresswoman Giffords had given"Your "word for word" includes this"as his court is seriously short of judges and the process has been locked up by republicans in the senate."which is nowhere to be found in the document. That is lying.Couldn't resist trying to get a dig in at the Republicans could you?You deliberately misconstrue the facts yet try to make out that the only problem is people calling each other names.
Chase is "angry and ashamed" over a comment in a newspaper that he often says he doesn't read. Wrong my friend - I read it everyday. In fact, I have NEVER stated that I do not read it. I need to -to know what evil is up to in the hearts of the the America-hating anti-Christian ones who produce the most influential piece of Main Stream Media. I believe it's demise would be a great thing for the people of the United States and would raise the levels of basic decency in this country.You cannot find one time I have written that I do not read the New York Times.So please - do not misrepresent me.
@Shanna: Thanks, you are absolutely right. Still, it probably is easier to remain civil for people like myself, who feel less polarized by positions than ideology. I feel I can live with my opponent's policies for a period of time when they've won the election. It's harder when you think it's absolutely critical that your policies carry the day. I'm a Dem, but I can live with tax decreases for the rich for a while, or an increase in defense spending. I thought G. Bush was probably our least intelligent president in my lifetime, but I still liked him personally. I think it's horrible to castigate public servants the way we do. Some people will probably always feel like they are in a war for their ideology and against someone else's. I understand. But I'll bet some of them would probably feel a lot better if they laid down their arms and realized that their role is pretty damn insignificant no matter how they feel.
I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was a Marxist and a Palestinian.
I can't believe I'm typing this, but this Mother Jones piece on the shooter is actually quite good:http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1I feel dirty.
The shooter is an evil lunatic. Who really cares what motivates a crazy person? It is not as if they are taking some philosophy to its logical conclusion; they are not logical in the first place.
HDHouse,I hesitate to over-stimulate your over-active fantasy world, but…Your imagined perception of the current state of the national debate reminds me of a cartoon (as do you).Again…Dims decry the current state of the discourse for one reason and one reason only -- they no longer control every single vector for the dissemination of information and, as a direct result, they are now LOSING THE DEBATE -- big time!
@RL...no no no. you claimed one thing and when caught in your mistake you have changed your position.I really don't mind. You add nothing to the discussion of ANY value.
YES YES YES House you were lying.You said "word for word"It wasn't you added things that weren't true. A LIEAnd by declaring nothing I say has value you slide perilously close to a Ad hominem attack.
Cop-killer "Mumia Jamal is another case of a violent behavior"A murderer so beloved by liberals that NPR hired him to do a radio show titled "Live from Death Row".
Post a Comment