| YourValentine 09.01.2011 03:09 |
link Today the worst job must be Sarah Palin's Facebook censor. Posts are almost quicker deleted than posted - even a prayer for the victims was deleted. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.01.2011 05:33 |
And of course the brutal political murder of at least six people in Arizona had nothing to do with the far-right madness of the Tea Party and the rest of Sarah Palin (and Geert Wilders') friends. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 09.01.2011 07:23 |
Disgusting. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 09.01.2011 09:12 |
The Left is saying political rhetoric should be toned down, that putting crosshairs on senator districts and stating that constituents should "reload" goes too far. The Right insists there is no direct connection to that and the shootings. They refuse to admit the post was over the top, distasteful or in any way inciting. Meanwhile, Palin and her people took that page offline immediately after the shooting occurred. If that is not a sign of recognizing her own culpability, I don't know what is. I can only hope the pressure on her remains and that the critically wounded congresswoman heals, goes back to work in the House and continues to cast votes according to her beliefs. Beyond all that is the agony other families involved must endure. They're all heartbreaking, but the worst has to be the death of that 9 year old girl, taken there by a neighbor to be a part of something exciting to her. This little girl was born into terrorism - on September 11, 2001 - and died at its hand. I can't imagine the pain her family is going through. On top of all this, the shooter, apparently, obtained his weapons legally despite his criminal record and his - easily uncovered - mental instability. So many things contributed to this horrendous act. I doubt any one of them will be directly addressed or changed. |
| The Mir@cle 10.01.2011 06:48 |
Well, what can I say... other than that I just can sit here seeing my own country changing in what the US already is right now. And that hurts!! Oh, and btw... if America somehow (and it's not unlikely) manages this woman as the next President of America, then I really can't take the USA seriously anyway. |
| *goodco* 11.01.2011 09:51 |
We are, and will be affected for years (for so many reasons), regarding the Tucson incident. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords spoke out last year about the 'half governor's' hit list and her fears. What the Reich Wing of this company has needed to realize for years is that their banter fuels the fringe. Timothy McVie, the man who flew a plane into an IRS building in Texas, etc........words fuel the hate of the lunatics who may act. Tea Party members who show up with guns at a Presidential appearance, fueled by the hate speech from excessively rich 'John Birch' proponents, and along the lines of taking matters into their own hands using 'Second Amendment remedies'.........it's frickin scary. Don't get me started regarding 'birthers', Westboro Baptists, antiabortion bombers and murderers (thanks, BillO), arsonists of mosques and churches and temples.............. Just as bad as the ultra left wing eco-terrorists fueled by the cowardly rhetoric of webmasters and bloggers. I haven't liked what my employers, elected representatives, union officials, etc ......have done at times. I've been outraged at times. Using violence and breaking the law has never happened (though the fantasy of it has entered my mind....sorry, Jimmy Carter;-)) They all are just using their First Amendment rights concerning freedom of speech. Just like Hitler did ('hey, I never killed anyone. They were just 'words'.) "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me........unless your words condone violence and someone else follows up on them." btw.........I hate that phrase. Physical and verbal abuse still leave scars that last forever. MLK and Ghandi used words. Peaceful remedies. It worked........eventually. You may disagree with me. Fine. Please try to use an intelligent presentation, based on facts, without shouting or raising your voice, to correct or change my opinion. I may disagree with you. Fine. I will try to use an intelligent presentation, based on facts, without shouting or raising my voice, to correct or change your opinion. At the end, if we still disagree, at least we have both learned something, still have mutual respect, might have actually learned something, and can move on to something else. my .06 pence. thanks for reading. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 12.01.2011 09:13 |
The Mir@cle wrote: Well, what can I say... other than that I just can sit here seeing my own country changing in what the US already is right now. And that hurts!! Oh, and btw... if America somehow (and it's not unlikely) manages this woman as the next President of America, then I really can't take the USA seriously anyway. reply: i havent taken America seriously since Clinton left office...just wish our government would end the "special relationship" it gets us into more shit than required |
| john bodega 12.01.2011 10:20 |
Whenever you see or hear from Sarah Palin, just remember this. link She has never said anything insightful or helpful in her entire life as a public figure. The picture sums her up pretty well. |
| GratefulFan 12.01.2011 11:50 |
In a strange way I think the election of Obama nudged the door open wider for electing a whole lot of people for any number of reasons largely irrelevant to actual suitability for the office. Still, it's pretty tough to imagine any path that leads Sarah Palin directly to the presidency, though she'll probably be a kingmaker in 2012. On the other hand, American culture is so tied to ideas of success and winning that the best way to get rid of Sarah Palin might be to engineer letting her run for President. They don't generally let you try again. A significant contrast to many parliamentary democracies where you can have a leader of the opposition for years through multiple election cycles. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.01.2011 12:00 |
1960: America elects a Catholic president --> the reactionary part of the country (i.e. the bigots and other pond-scum) starts arming, organizing and terrorizing. We call this "massive resistance" or "the white backlash". 2008: America elects a black president --> the reactionary part of the country (i.e. the bigots and other pond-scum) starts arming, organizing and terrorizing. We call this "the Tea Party". To be quite honest, you'd be forgiven for not realizing that this is 2010 and not 1866. The Tea Party reminds me of nothing quite so much as unreconstructed confederates: backwards, violent, and hell-bent on revenge even at the cost of destroying the country. |
| GratefulFan 12.01.2011 13:01 |
I've found myself almost unable to bear the rhetoric of these last few days, of which the above is a shining example. The irony of the politicized and reductionist bashing of 'Tea Partiers' for their alleged dangerous reductionist bashing is pretty rich. The development of a personality that seeks to carry out assassination and mass murder is a long and complex process and there is absolutely no indication at this time to what degree, if any, the political climate spurred him on. The gunsight imagery never struck me as particularly violent in any real sense anyway as the people she was trying to find resonance with are the people who associate weapons with concepts like freedom and independence and self sufficiency and all that other happy stuff that supports the rather shocking ability of Americans to do eggs/milk/Glock runs just about any day of the week. Any future in which the culture as a whole is peeled from guns and entrenched militarism and the everyday language and metaphors that go along with it is far enough away that it is at least as valuable to talk about the real and practical ways in which this could have been avoided or mitigated . Mental health services and educating people about human behaviour that prevents individuals from taking action when so many people clearly knew this guy was deeply unstable would be a good start. |
| YourValentine 12.01.2011 18:33 |
GratefulFan wrote: I've found myself almost unable to bear the rhetoric of these last few days, of which the above is a shining example. The irony of the politicized and reductionist bashing of 'Tea Partiers' for their alleged dangerous reductionist bashing is pretty rich. The development of a personality that seeks to carry out assassination and mass murder is a long and complex process and there is absolutely no indication at this time to what degree, if any, the political climate spurred him on. I think the "bashing" of tea partiers comes from the shock of the assassination. Since the election of President Obama the democrats had to bear the hateful vitriolic outbursts of parts of this movement. Obama is a muslim, not an American, a communist, the Anti-Christ. This is not about a political discussion or competition of ideas: it's pure and simple hatred against the elected leader. Apparently, some democrats already were scared before the shooting as the interview of Mrs Giffords in March shows - it was on NBC after her office was vandalized after her health care vote: "Community leaders, figures in our community need to say “look, we can’t stand for this.” This is a situation where — people don’t — they really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action." Although Mrs Gifford's office was attacked and she expressed her worry about the target list, Sarah Palin did not "retreat" - she ignored the worries of an elected American Congresswoman and continued with her campaign. There is no excuse for such behaviour. It does not matter if she inspired the killer or not. After Mrs. Gifford's office had been vandalized, every politician in the country should have pledged for a less violent discourse. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.01.2011 06:30 |
>>> YourValentine wrote: After Mrs. Gifford's office had been vandalized, every politician in the country should have pledged for a less violent discourse. <<< . They should have but that would have taken courage, common sense and a stronger desire to do what was right than what was politically advantageous. Riling the public is such an easy thing to do. Frighten them. Give them something or someone to hate and they'll follow you, they'll wait for the next bit of gossip they can spread - and spin. A frighteningly large number of people in this country have shown not only their ignorance but also their hatred of the very country they say they want to 'take back' from those who would prefer to take it forward. This country is supposed to be one that supports expression of opposing views. It's supposed to be one in which 'all men are created equal.' The religious right - which is loudest, which supports Palin and her ilk, which are so pro-gun they bring automatic weapons to speeches made by the president - has clearly showcased the opposite of what this country is supposed to be. They are mostly 'christian' yet show little to no 'christian' values. They mock their opponents with immature, inciting remarks then bluster when called on it. Palin's 8-minute, narcissistic response to the accusations are the latest proof of that. It's about her. Just like her followers - it's about them. Not country, not fellow man. And when this president - a man they clearly hate and are working above all else to make a "one-term president" - says anything, he's derided in the most disrespectful way. How can there be anything but discourse when the President of the United States is insulted - even heckled - behind his back and to his face by members of Congress - people who represent the people. Even Bush - for all his lies, for all the hatred he single-handedly brought America from around the world - was not treated so disrespectfully by representatives. The republicans and teabaggers are so enraged that this president and the last congress should dare put through a bill that helps people - gives them a chance at quality health coverage - that they put gun sites on blue districts, told their followers to reload, told them if the election came out wrong they might have to turn to second amendment remedies, said "if ballots don't work, bullets will", "if we haven't achieved substantial victory, I mean it, I'm going to gather together men and women who understand that some things are worth fighting for and some things are worth dying for". They've lied, outright and, when presented with facts, refuse to acknowledge those lies. And their followers are angry enough to do the same. There are no "death panels", there are no "headless bodies in the Arizona desert", there was no $200 million per day expense for the president's trip to India. It's all lies meant to stir resentment and discontent. Yet a member of congress has the balls to shout to this president, "You lie." We don't know what set off this guy in Arizona. It may not be connected to the hate spewed by these politicians. And yet, the people clearly want the hate speeches to stop. They want dialogue. They want compromise and forward movement. They want to be led by level-headed people. By adults. Sadly, at this time, this country has only a handful of adults in positions of power. |
| Donna13 13.01.2011 09:46 |
I was reading an article on this kid this morning. He had many police reports due to his disruptive and threatening behavior in his classes at the community college. So ... a person has to wonder what the laws are in Arizona with respect to putting a person in a mental facility against their will. If you ever watch any real-life police shows, you realize just how many people "out there" are crazy. Some are maybe temporarily crazy due to drugs or circumstances that just send them over the edge. But this guy had teachers noticing his behavior over a period of time. It seems very similar to the Virginia Tech shooting situation to me. This guy happened to choose the congresswoman's event, and maybe some of the Tea Party stuff did get into his head and confuse him. But, I say it could have been any number of places he could have chosen instead - possibly the community college classroom or a local military recruiting station. Time will tell, I guess (what his motivation was). I feel sorry for the shooter's family, the victims, and the families of these victims. But notice how quickly politicians have politicized this event, which is probably very confusing to the typical person on the street. Obama is already campaigning and while I appreciate that he attended the memorial service, I also see it as being in bad taste at the same time - because he was underlining the political aspect of the situation, which nobody knows for sure is even part of what set this guy off. Making this about "America" and "American values" and "working together" is just turning a tragic situation into a political campaign slogan. Billions of dollars are going into Homeland Security and this is being overseen by the current administration. Avoiding another incident such as this and the Virginia Tech shootings should be part of every public person's training. The police at local levels and others in positions to catch this sort of thing before it is too late need to stay up to date on the latest training and procedures (if they exist). Like I said, billions are going into homeland security and some of that has to be getting down to the local level (the funding for training programs, etc.) So, instead of placing all blame on a person who is not even in authority (Sarah Palin), I would look at who is in authority and who does have the power: Obama, the governor of Arizona, the local police, Homeland Security (Janet Nepolitano), Congress (who should have figured out by now that representatives might need security at events), etc. etc. etc. |
| Lisser 14.01.2011 13:17 |
If Palin becomes President, I am moving to Germany to live with Barb. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.01.2011 13:39 |
>> Lisser wrote: If Palin becomes President, I am moving to Germany to live with Barb.<< . I know you called it first, but if Barb's taking in refugees, I'll be there right beside you. |
| GratefulFan 15.01.2011 02:50 |
It's possible, perhaps even probable, that the right leads the left when it comes to violent political speech and imagery. It's difficult to tell, because that notion is one of those things that the left now treats like some kind of inalienable first principle that requires little in the way of argument, and clearly doesn't require taking a good hard look in the mirror either. The vandalism of political offices is probably as old as political office, and it was certainly a force during the Bush years as waves of attacks against Republican offices were reported and fretted over. Now, apparently, it's all Sarah Palin's fault. Embarrassingly facile. When Bush was heckled by the Democratic House in his State of the Union address that was believed by the left to be justified, righteous indignation. Well, newsflash, the right and the libertarians (who make up a not insignificant section of a comparatively measured and reasoned segment of the Tea Party people) genuinely believe they are justified and righteous in their indignance as well. It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being. When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH. The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself. |
| YourValentine 15.01.2011 03:20 |
I think the emigration bit was just a joke, GFF :-) Both Lisser and MagicalFF know that Germany is not a paradise. After all, fuel costs over 7$ here. About the political rhetoric I think that it did not happen before President Obama that a member of congress shouted "liar" during a speech of the President. Of course the majority of Republicans do not resort to lying and inciting hatred but unfortunately the minority makes all the noise and gets all the media attention.Personallly, I think it is asked a lot from the so-called "level-headed" to take all these insults and violence but still keep the discourse civil. It is hard to keep up civility when you are shouted down all the time. Funny how the election of President Obama was celebrated by the media as the biggest achievemnet in the USA because a black man was elected in a democratic process but now nobody touches the subject of the underlying racism in the discourse of these tea partiers and their followers. While I never understood the hype about Obama who was worshipped like a messiah at the beginning I now do not understand the hatred and total lack of respect against a President who surprisingly cannot walk the water. When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 15.01.2011 07:05 |
>>>YourValentine wrote: When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child. <<< . And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is. . While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting. . I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.01.2011 10:33 |
GratefulFan wrote: It's possible, perhaps even probable, that the right leads the left when it comes to violent political speech and imagery. It's difficult to tell, because that notion is one of those things that the left now treats like some kind of inalienable first principle that requires little in the way of argument, and clearly doesn't require taking a good hard look in the mirror either. The vandalism of political offices is probably as old as political office, and it was certainly a force during the Bush years as waves of attacks against Republican offices were reported and fretted over. Now, apparently, it's all Sarah Palin's fault. Embarrassingly facile. When Bush was heckled by the Democratic House in his State of the Union address that was believed by the left to be justified, righteous indignation. Well, newsflash, the right and the libertarians (who make up a not insignificant section of a comparatively measured and reasoned segment of the Tea Party people) genuinely believe they are justified and righteous in their indignance as well. It's true that Sharron Angle uttered contemptible and irresponsible things, but she didn't win. She lost in a historically red state running against a deeply unpopular incumbent in a national wave that tossed out Democratic incumbents by the dozen. She was summarily rejected by thousands of people who have been in the past and will be in the future, Republican voters. People are often wiser than they are given credit for being. When it comes to political violence the fact is that most domestic terrorism in at least the last 40 years has been committed by anti government nutjobs, the left and the well left of left. And any notion that the right has the market cornered on glib, insulting, reductionist rhetoric is laughable. Look no farther than this thread where completely without irony and apparently without much reflection people are talking about level-headedness and adult solutions while nearly simultaneously calling people teabaggers, implying that an apparently monolithic right is full of rage over the very thought of people being helped, and, my personal favourite, dramatically declaring their intention to become German emigres. And there's the part where without the most basic syllogistic integrity people are willing to pin Sarah Palin with culpability for that heinous, heartbreaking act in Tucson. In pursuit of the high road apparently, a more civil and thoughtfully reflective world. Hah, hah and HAH. The fact is that almost everybody talks to, and about, everybody that way. About everything. Hell, Brian May talks that way about farmers(!). Sometimes people talk to each other here on Queenzone like that, like there is no person, no feelings on the other end. Public comments and discourse on the websites run by every news agency in the Western Hemisphere are a complete fucking cesspit. The truth is, we're all guilty. When you point your finger at someone else, you're pointing three back at yourself. ====== You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2011 12:50 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: "You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes." ================================================ So then the question is... why are progressive, forward-thinking people more complacent than narrow-minded, backward-thinking people? |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.01.2011 14:01 |
Could you specify what you mean when you say "complacent"? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 16.01.2011 09:17 |
>>>Sir GH wrote: So then the question is... why are progressive, forward-thinking people more complacent than narrow-minded, backward-thinking people? "<<< . I'll take a stab at this - I'd say the backward-thinking people are more frightened that their control may be taken away and so they fight harder and dirtier. The progressive, forward-thinking people want harmony and believe working in a less aggressive manner will win logic from the other side. It's a kind of "can't we all just get along" way of thinking. That's not to say progressives are a bunch of peaceful free-loving people, because we all know there are nuts at all levels and on all sides. The overall thought process, however, is one of non-aggression. Which often has the side effect of pissing off the base. |
| YourValentine 17.01.2011 01:21 |
I believe that fanatics on each side are the ones who are easily incited to hatred. Whenever people are driven by instincts and emotions rather than reason they are prone to hatred and blind rage. People are not necessarily "good" by nature imo. It comes much more natural to give in to anger, jealousy, fear, xenophobia and racism than to respect and honour the rights, life and opinion of other people in the same way as our own rights, life and opinion. Only education and the rule of law can help to advance a society. That is why advanced societies do not have the death penalty but instead they have social security, health care and access to education for all.. Education shows us that we are far from perfect and the whole society is needed to obtain justice and social security for everybody. In the case of Sarah Palin - she is one of those who agitate the fear and rage in other people rather than working honestly on the well-being of her country. The fact that she calls herself a Christian and a patriot is only an additional insult for Christians and patriots who do not hate other people and who are given a bad name by her. She stands in a line with other agitators in the past who have caused as much pain and suffering as the mob who was incited by them and the Republican party should get rid of her. The only good thing she said in her videotaped drivel is that people are responsible for what they do. Too bad she does not apply this to herself. |
| *goodco* 19.01.2011 18:16 |
No one says it better (the first 8 minutes) link Remember...............I can attack you (it's not attacking)....but do not attack me, because then it's attacking. Best obvious, unused word during the Stewart bit concerning the half governor.......................hypocrite. nuff said |
| GratefulFan 19.01.2011 22:45 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: You will find that, if you look outside the domestic US, most political violence by far, and I stress this, by far, has been committed by international narcotics syndicates-annex-paramilitary-units for the past four decades. Some of this violence has been against conservative regimes, but it has in a vast majority of cases fought against progressive democratic regimes. ======================================== I'm happy to take your word for that. I was referring to the US. Sorry if I wasn't clear. |
| GratefulFan 20.01.2011 01:19 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>YourValentine wrote: When 25% of the tea-party follers believe that Obama is the "anti-Christ" the political climate is poisoned and it is time that the leaders of this movement reconsider their methods - which is very improbable considering the self-absorbed, whining, dishonest tirade by Sarah Palin who did not even have a thought for the parents of this murdered child. <<< . And that is the bottom line. As has been said here and elsewhere, there may not be a connection between the violent rhetoric and the shooting, but that does not excuse that rhetoric. The majority of American people have had enough of it. Palin's crew took down the gun-sight post immediately after news broke of the shooting, which proves nearly everyone's thought was on a possible connection, including her. To shrug it off as just another "lame-stream media ploy", showed how hostile and insensitive - and dishonest - this woman is. . While some might try to show the left as equal in rhetorical crap as the right (and, for the record, "teabaggers" was the original name THEY chose for themselves), there is no comparison since the violence in their words, and the anger lacing those words, has escalated near the point of no return. Grumbling and saying, "no way" when the president speaks is quite different from shouting "You lie". And standing up for rights and justice while vowing to stand together and strip away the rights of others - which seems to be a mainstay of the right - is hardly a position worth respecting. . I still find it amazing though how the right can dish out all this hate yet when called on it - by having their own words repeated back to them - the right denies culpability and reprimands the center and left for perpetuating the problem. And the hostility escalates. The president said it beautifully, imo, without pointing fingers. He could have been speaking equally to both sides - and just might have been. He's an intelligent man and I see him using this event to do just what he said - to change the tone in Washington. As for the rest of us, maybe we're just guilty of waiting for that to happen in the White House before it happens within our own house. ========================= Google 'Bush' and 'anti-Christ'. Perhaps there is simply some constant that represents people willing to indulge that kind of thing - as believers or tacticians - when the political winds are not blowing their way. Perhaps that figure is about 25% of any given populist movement. As that kind of polling doesn't seem to have been done in the Bush days it may be hard to know. We live in a time when we are assaulted by endless information, and decontextualized facts jammed into pet theories are a perpetual hazard. I do think that serious, impartial study might reveal that the right generally does invoke and glamourize the language of force to defend rights and freedoms and achieve political ends more than the left, but the gaping divide people would like to believe is there simply doesn't exist. It does not exist. There have been endless examples of violent rhetoric and hate speech from the left end of the political spectrum pinging around the right wing blogosphere and the right wing media for a couple of weeks now. They are no less distasteful or sobering that the worst of the examples from the right. That the left has any kind of significant moral high ground on that front is purely an illusion. 'You lie!' was undeniably an unacceptable breach of respect and decorum. But so much more so than the Democrat who put on the Congressional Record the 'fact' that George Bush was sending troops to die in the war 'for his personal amusement'? I wouldn't think so. I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 tonight and he was talking to Steven Cohen who is under fire (see how common the language of war is in political discussion? You can barely avoid it if you try) for remarks likening GOP tactics to those of the Nazis. Despite being given a chance to soften his language, he refused. In fact he chose to dig even deeper into the comparison through repeated references to Goebbels throughout the segment. When asked to defend his position he talked of knowing the real character of Tea Partiers from walking amongst them and reading their hateful signs. A particularly offensive one related Obama to Hitler, he said. While in the same breath, the very same breath, calling the GOP Nazis and claiming the high ground. Anderson is usually good at keeping cool, but his disbelief at what was coming out of this man's mouth was impossible to hide, and he eventually stopped trying. The segment ended in a manner that could almost be described as surreal. Whether it's an inherent quality of the left, or a quality of whoever holds the current political power, the left do not see themselves clearly, or at least as others see them. I saw a Quinnipiac poll a few days ago that had a question buried about whether the left or the right was more responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and the political climate. Republicans, Democrats and Independents were asked and overall the answer was 'Democrats' by 36 to 32 percent (or something close to that). The real story for me though was in the responses of the main parties relative to the Independents. If just the Independents were considered the findings were once again close at about 36 to 32, but reversed with Conservatives held slightly more accountable for the tone than Liberals. While only a small number of Conservative and Liberals saw their own parties as the main culprits (8 and 9 percent), 57 percent of Conservatives blamed Liberals and a whopping 71 percent of Liberals blamed Conservatives. Conservatives were much more likely then to say 'I don't know' and closer in perception to the Independents who are presumably far less idealogically motivated. It's just one poll, and extrapolating too much from it would't be wise but it certainly supports what I perceive anecdotally. Saying that Tea Partiers called themselves 'teabaggers' at the beginning is not a defence, if that's the right word. They did so naively. People who use that tern now are guilty of casually flinging about a slightly homophobic, degrading sexual slur for the purpose of dehumanizing political opponents. Those opponents are no better, generally, but then again they're not really pretending to be. Saying that Obama 'just might have been' talking to both sides is not enough. Of course he was talking to both sides. It couldn't have been clearer. Saying that the shooting 'might not have had anything to do with' Sarah Palin and Tea Party rhetoric is not enough. There is simply no evidence of it. None. The potential of heated rhetoric to incite violence in present day America is something that should be studied, so the problem is not with the question, it's with the opportunistic use of it a political night stick in the middle of a tragedy. What did you think Sarah Palin was going to do. Sit there and take it? If so, that was a completely unreasonable expectation. I was watching some Julian Assange clips tonight and thinking about his love life laid bare as I posted in another thread. I was thinking about how it revealed him to be at least in part a flawed, vulnerable and ordinary man, and how it was ironic that in a sense that is what he is doing to so many other people. Pulling back the curtain to reveal ordinary flawed people in positions of great power in various states of being afraid of losing it. Every time Sarah Palin talks she underscores how essentially unremarkable she is, how unprepared she is for anything great. Just like almost everybody else. The end of all this almost has to be a big bloody pile of exhausted people left staring at each other, finally having clawed off enough of the caricature they constructed to recognize themselves in the stunningly ordinary people looking back. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.01.2011 07:42 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: 'You lie!' was undeniably an unacceptable breach of respect and decorum. But so much more so than the Democrat who put on the Congressional Record the 'fact' that George Bush was sending troops to die in the war 'for his personal amusement'? I wouldn't think so. <<< ================ When speaking about going into Iraq and taking out Saddam, Bush himself said the words, “after all, he’s the man who tried to kill my dad.” If that doesn’t sound like a man who brought a country to war for his own purpose, I don’t know what does. Added to that is the insult to common sense when he said – repeatedly at news conferences and at least once to a world leader (Germany’s chancellor Gerhard Schroder) – that god told him to go into Iraq. This was a delusional man with his own agenda. That agenda destroyed thousands upon thousands of lives, cost America – financially – in ways from which we may never recover, and tarnished America’s name even among her allies. Anti-christ? That’s a ridiculous assessment whether coming from the left or the right. He was simply one of the worst American presidents because his policy was tied to his personal needs rather than to those of his country or the world. . There may not be a connection between the shooting in Tucson and Palin’s ‘reload’ comment and graphic. I’ll say it again – there may not be a connection. But, according to her, there is a connection between the shooting and the shooter’s “left-leaning ideals”. She’s the victim, she says, because she was falsely accused. And yet she will falsely accuse in her defense. That about sums it up. . The violent, anti-choice, anti-poor, anti-gay, ultra-christian rhetoric of the ultra and not-so ultra right divides this country in ways that may be impossible to overcome. And their obsession with guns is rather unsettling. They so want to ensure their gun rights that one senator has gone so far as to draft a bill that would make it illegal – and punishable by a million dollar fine – for a pediatrician to ask parents if they have guns in the home. The fear is that pediatricians will put the names of parents who own guns on some government list. According to this republican senator, that (made-up) possibility is an invasion of the parents’ privacy. So if the government is told when/if parents own guns, that’s an invasion of personal privacy, but it is not an invasion of personal privacy when the government gets between a doctor and a woman’s uterus. . Hypocrisy exists on both sides. I’ve said that before in my posts. However, I see a more unifying and hopeful view of this country from the left than from the right. Their elitist, anti-individual view is what has all but brought this country to its knees. The violence-laced speech escalated when Obama succeeded in passing new healthcare laws. They hate those laws. If not because it helps those in need, then because it came from this president. They want him to fail and said so at the onset. They lie continuously to make their view sound more grounded, more logical. They are focused on making President Obama a one-term president. They’re focused on that, not on the economy, on real healthcare, or any other issue this country desperately needs them to focus on, but on making this president fail… all the while refusing to acknowledge that if the American president fails, the country fails. IMO, that alone is enough to call the right out for their hateful speech – which is without question laced with more fury and pure hate than the overall message from the left. . Irresponsible people who say irresponsible things are everywhere and there’s enough blame to touch everyone. Mostly, however, it will land on those who rile others in a way that promotes, seems to encourage, and then denies responsibility for violence. . link |
| YourValentine 22.01.2011 03:29 |
This video is really scary. It also tells me that in the USA the freedom of speech is much less limited that in my country. Here the woman would commit a crime against the constitution by publicly suggesting that she is up to kill people if the outcome of the election does not suit her. No member of parliament - not even a Neonazi - would dare to employ her. I also think that she completely misunderstands the meaning of the second amendment. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 22.01.2011 12:29 |
>>>>YourValentine wrote: No member of parliament - not even a Neonazi - would dare to employ her. <<<< ============ . For the record, she's no longer chief of staff. However, she was not let go. Instead, she stepped down, prompting a statement of 'regret' from West that she wouldn't be part of his team. Scary indeed. . link |
| Mr.Jingles 23.01.2011 18:33 |
As much as I dislike Sarah Palin I have to say that she shouldn't be blamed for this. I agree that the whole idea of the map with the targets, and the tweets saying "Don't retreat, instead reaload" are inappropriate and without a doubt stupid, but to blame her for this incident is a tactic by the liberal media to demonize the other side. Now don't get me wrong, I'm quite liberal myself, but sometimes liberals in the media step down to the level of the right-wing nut jobs of FOX News. Sarah Palin is certainly not the Anti-Christ, but she's truly stupid just like the rest of the Tea Party morons who just happen to be angry at the government but have no strategy whatsoever on how to make things better. They are just bitter ignorant people who want to be in power. |
| user name 24.01.2011 00:58 |
One might also explicitly note that the shootings were in no way related to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, nor even conservatives in general. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.01.2011 06:31 |
user name wrote: One might also explicitly note that the shootings were in no way related to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, nor even conservatives in general. ===== You mean, apart from the fact that the shooter was obsessed with the gold standard, the 'totalitarianism' of the (liberal) government and everything else Glenn Beck repeats on a daily basis? I realize that most Americans, like most Europeans, can't be bothered to look across their own borders, but if you did, you'd notice that an aggressive and virulent brand of nationalism is sweeping Europe and the US, as it often does in the wake of an economic downturn. People often go round saying (or, more often, screaming) that likening these movements (Tea Party, BNP, PVV, Front National, Vlaams Belang, Popolo della Libertá, etc) to the nazis is not permissible and incorrect. Disregarding for a moment that these people have no problems with likening the Islam or the left to the nazis, they are also quite wrong. The reason for this is that they, like most people, have such poor historical awareness that when they hear "nazi" they immediately think of the Holocaust. NEWSFLASH: the nazis had been in power for nearly *ten years* before they came up with that! If you compare the NSDAP as it was in 1932, directly before they (quite legally) came to power, to these modern-day reactionary nationalist movements, there are major differences (like the emphasis on paramilitarism), but strikingly, these major differences are characteristic not so much of the nazis and their foreign counterparts as they are of the late 1920s and the 1930s. The clichés about nazis we like to throw around (uncivilized upstarts prancing around in uniforms, strict hierarchy, and the likes) are equally applicable to most if not all political movements of the time. However, when we get down to the core of it, the things that set apart the nazis from other movements of the interbellum are hauntingly familiar: - an emphasis on political style over political content ('political theatre', powerful leader-figure, use of strong language) - 11th-hour scaremongering - obsession with a supposed 'fifth column' - labelling political opponents traitors of the nation (n.b.) and smearing them - emphasizing their own values as 'traditional' (often they aren't) and implying that opposing them is unpatriotic - cultural nationalism (your birth decides who you are: if your parents were Moroccan, you will never be Dutch, French, German, whatever) The list goes on and on. Something we all too often forget is that after WWII, there was very little so-called "denazification": many if not most nazi officeholders were left in their places because it was too much of a hassle to get rid of them (to name but one example, fewer than a hundred Dutch policemen were fired after the war, despite the fact that the police and the civil service were the two branches in which most collaboration took place. As late as the end of the 1960s, an absolute majority of the chiefs of police had been members of either the NSDAP or the NSB (Dutch fascist movement)) - many aspects of nazi ideology were allowed to continue (e.g. project Gladio, the anti-communist guerilla in case of a Soviet invasion, supplied neo-fascists and even nazi king pins with funding and weapons), and many nazi's remained in prominent places (well into the 1970s public figures often had to step down upon investigation by the media which uncovered unsavoury ties to the nazis ranging from collaboration to membership of the SS). Nazism is not dead, it has merely taken on a more acceptable guise and toned down its rhetoric. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.01.2011 06:43 |
>>>user name wrote: One might also explicitly note that the shootings were in no way related to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, nor even conservatives in general. <<<< . =============== . The shootings seem to be related to an inept mental health concept and care system in this country (and access to guns, but that's a topic for another thread...). I'd like to say the only good thing that came of this is more dialogue on this very issue. Unfortunately for everyone, there's other news to report and focus on so mental health has already fallen from the headlines. . However... the shootings called direct attention to the violent references of media noisemakers and political leaders. And, for the record, it wasn't the media who made the initial connection. It was regular people on the streets and in social media forums. It was also Palin's own people who scrubbed the words and graphics from her PAC site within minutes of the shooting. What this shows is an anger and preoccupation with the words and images used by those in positions of power, and a single uh-oh moment by one of same. . Some of the biggest and most outspoken have called for more civility. Others, including if not especially Palin, have refused to acknowledge how their words, attitudes or graphics relate to the divisive and dangerous mood of the public. To not acknowledge that is to reinforce the sense of superiority and arrogance so often and so well displayed by this irresponsible woman. Whether her rhetoric was a tipping point for the shooting is now irrelevant because she will forever be connected to it in theory when she could have put it all to rest with a proper call for more 'civil' civil discourse. |