Congresswoman shot.

[One Brow]

I think it's wise to condemn all the right-wingers who claimed the shooter was a left-wing nut.

 

[franklin]

Apparently not as much as we love doughnuts and coffee. Right?

You're the cop. Please answer the question when you find time. Thanks.

 

[VINYLONE]

@ Boondock: Are you really a cop?

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm from the state involved and I speak with at least one person presently residing in the state every day. To say that the area is unusually polarized is true. It just is. And the politics there have been aggressively ugly.

I understand that it is not the case that he's what we think of as a prototypical tea partier but I think the other side is pushing too far in saying that there is no possible way there's an influence or an undercurrent involved. I mentioned earlier that there's some recognizable strands, particularly in relation to his beliefs regarding hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution. In an effort to demonize those who said there was a link I've seen literally no discussion from the right side, here or anywhere else, about these parallels.

Here's the thing: political violence is not a random occurrence except in the rarest of instances. Loughner was not trying impress Jodie Foster. He had specific beliefs and went after Giffords, at least in part because she's a government representative. The track record on him having paranoid ramblings about government control of his grammar and, by extension (according to him), his very thoughts is irrefutable. (I'm coming around to the idea this was probably influenced by Derrida, but that's another discussion).

That the threat of political violence against government officials, particularly those on the left, has escalated dramatically during a period of time where one side's rhetoric has tended towards the idea that a Democratic-Party controlled government is, in and of itself, illegitimate and the enemy of the people is unlikely to be a coincidence. When Steve King empathizes with a guy who runs his plane into an IRS building, the message is that the government is your enemy. When Eric Cantor emonizes Democrats for even mentioning they're subject to unprecedented levels of death threats, the implicit message is that those threats are acceptable. Those expectations that some level of political violence was inevitable have been building for at least 10 months since it was revealed that Democratic congresspersons were subject to very high threat levels.

Some want this to be a teachable moment. That so many were unsurprised something like this happened says almost as much about the climate as if he had actually been purely motivated by right-wing politics. This is an instance where overheated speech creates expectations and those expectations inform how we process events. The other side is trying their damnedest to say "not only do we learn nothing, but we refuse to acknowledge we need to learn anything." That removes what little bit of optimism I had about how this would shake out in the medium to long term.

Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum. Context does matter, and we have strands and pieces that indicate Loughner was at least cognizant of particular messages portrayed by one side of the aisle. That he was more nut than political agent doesn't absolve one side entirely. But that's the way it looks like things are going to shake out in our consensus-based group think.

 

[franklin]

I'm from the state involved and I speak with at least one person presently residing in the state every day. To say that the area is unusually polarized is true. It just is. And the politics there have been aggressively ugly.

I understand that it is not the case that he's what we think of as a prototypical tea partier but I think the other side is pushing too far in saying that there is no possible way there's an influence or an undercurrent involved. I mentioned earlier that there's some recognizable strands, particularly in relation to his beliefs regarding hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution. In an effort to demonize those who said there was a link I've seen literally no discussion from the right side, here or anywhere else, about these parallels.

Here's the thing: political violence is not a random occurrence except in the rarest of instances. Loughner was not trying impress Jodie Foster. He had specific beliefs and went after Giffords, at least in part because she's a government representative. The track record on him having paranoid ramblings about government control of his grammar and, by extension (according to him), his very thoughts is irrefutable. (I'm coming around to the idea this was probably influenced by Derrida, but that's another discussion).

That the threat of political violence against government officials, particularly those on the left, has escalated dramatically during a period of time where one side's rhetoric has tended towards the idea that a Democratic-Party controlled government is, in and of itself, illegitimate and the enemy of the people is unlikely to be a coincidence. When Steve King empathizes with a guy who runs his plane into an IRS building, the message is that the government is your enemy. When Eric Cantor emonizes Democrats for even mentioning they're subject to unprecedented levels of death threats, the implicit message is that those threats are acceptable. Those expectations that some level of political violence was inevitable have been building for at least 10 months since it was revealed that Democratic congresspersons were subject to very high threat levels.

Some want this to be a teachable moment. That so many were unsurprised something like this happened says almost as much about the climate as if he had actually been purely motivated by right-wing politics. This is an instance where overheated speech creates expectations and those expectations inform how we process events. The other side is trying their damnedest to say "not only do we learn nothing, but we refuse to acknowledge we need to learn anything." That removes what little bit of optimism I had about how this would shake out in the medium to long term.

Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum. Context does matter, and we have strands and pieces that indicate Loughner was at least cognizant of particular messages portrayed by one side of the aisle. That he was more nut than political agent doesn't absolve one side entirely. But that's the way it looks like things are going to shake out in our consensus-based group think.

Quite unconvincing.

Why would anyone be surprised this happened? Things like this always happen.

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right. You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

 

[LogGrad98]

Quite unconvincing.

Why would anyone be surprised this happened? Things like this always happen.

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right. You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

+4 especially for the statement in bold.

 

[sirkickyass]

Hard backed currency advocates are just as left as they are right.

False balance at its finest.

You're argument hinges on this blanket notion that the far-right--who have absolutely no connection to the conservative right or tea party right other than the word right--have a monopoly on "hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution". Talk about group-think at its best.

Quick answer, in the last 2 years which side of the aisle has emphasized:

1) The gold standard;
2) Embracing "government control" style conspiracy theories (those expressed by Loughner);
3) The Primacy of the Constitution as a document with defined and specific meanings that are universally ascertainable?

If you say both sides you're lying.

"Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum" is as laughable a statement as they come. Have you read anything about the various mental disorders taking over reality?

Yes. Have you watched the videos and made any determination that he was totally divorced from reality? Personally, I think there's significant evidence that he knew what he was doing, and even knew that what he was doing was unacceptable.

I know from a legal perspective his "please don't be mad at me" message is devastating to his inevitable insanity defense.

EDIT: Closer to my original point that the ways in which mental illness is expressed are not completely removed from surrounding context, you can look, for example, at: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/12/elliott.htm

The article is long, but supports my general belief that psychiatric illnesses tend to be expressed in ways that are molded by the social norms of the culture in which the person lives. Madness isn't totally unreceptive to input.

Maybe you should focus a little more attention on understanding both sides involved and less time subtly attacking one side for ideological reasons. Do you want an argument on how your support of forceful policy causes the restlessness and anger that, according to your pet theory, is at least partially responsible for this violence?

I suspect you'll give me one regardless of my level of interest. Just wanted to step in before the echo chamber got solidified on one side.

And now I'll go back to trying to find William Powell and Myrna Loy memorabilia.

 

[The Pearl]

I'm from the state involved and I speak with at least one person presently residing in the state every day. To say that the area is unusually polarized is true. It just is. And the politics there have been aggressively ugly.

I understand that it is not the case that he's what we think of as a prototypical tea partier but I think the other side is pushing too far in saying that there is no possible way there's an influence or an undercurrent involved. I mentioned earlier that there's some recognizable strands, particularly in relation to his beliefs regarding hard backed currency, conspiracy theories, and exotic interpretations of specific sections of the Constitution. In an effort to demonize those who said there was a link I've seen literally no discussion from the right side, here or anywhere else, about these parallels.

Here's the thing: political violence is not a random occurrence except in the rarest of instances. Loughner was not trying impress Jodie Foster. He had specific beliefs and went after Giffords, at least in part because she's a government representative. The track record on him having paranoid ramblings about government control of his grammar and, by extension (according to him), his very thoughts is irrefutable. (I'm coming around to the idea this was probably influenced by Derrida, but that's another discussion).

That the threat of political violence against government officials, particularly those on the left, has escalated dramatically during a period of time where one side's rhetoric has tended towards the idea that a Democratic-Party controlled government is, in and of itself, illegitimate and the enemy of the people is unlikely to be a coincidence. When Steve King empathizes with a guy who runs his plane into an IRS building, the message is that the government is your enemy. When Eric Cantor emonizes Democrats for even mentioning they're subject to unprecedented levels of death threats, the implicit message is that those threats are acceptable. Those expectations that some level of political violence was inevitable have been building for at least 10 months since it was revealed that Democratic congresspersons were subject to very high threat levels.

Some want this to be a teachable moment. That so many were unsurprised something like this happened says almost as much about the climate as if he had actually been purely motivated by right-wing politics. This is an instance where overheated speech creates expectations and those expectations inform how we process events. The other side is trying their damnedest to say "not only do we learn nothing, but we refuse to acknowledge we need to learn anything." That removes what little bit of optimism I had about how this would shake out in the medium to long term.

Mental illness doesn't express itself in a vacuum. Context does matter, and we have strands and pieces that indicate Loughner was at least cognizant of particular messages portrayed by one side of the aisle. That he was more nut than political agent doesn't absolve one side entirely. But that's the way it looks like things are going to shake out in our consensus-based group think.

Kicky,

I think I yielded earlier in the thread there is certainly some political connection. Any reasonable person can rule out randomness as Giffords being the target. As far as the constitutional ramblings and hard currency references, so what? If you want to take solace in the fact that some strands of this dude's ramblings he picked up from the far extreme "right wing" than you are free to do so. Let's for a moment pretend he is a tea bagger through and through. So what. What if a black member of the NAACP with a history of mental illness kills a white Congress person? Shall we shut down the NAACP? This rational is a complete illogical flip of the Muslim terrorist dilemma of not grouping all Muslims as terrorists.


So what is the solution? Perhaps the target of the reactionary left should be Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. What portion of the young man's political ideology contributed to the event when balanced against his home environment, his parents, his mental illness, the types of violence he consumed, the types of music he listened to, etc? Are we going to have a rhetoric color coded alert system for every political debate now? Perhaps if an issue gets too heated, Homeland Security can go to alert level RED and we can freeze the cable TV, blogs, and talk radios and pull them off the air for a cooling off period. Shall little johnny only listen to Glenn Beck or Ed Schultz for 15 minutes a day?

If you are going to moderate debate, even heated over the top rhetoric debate, because you think some psycho might take action, than you are going to have bleed over in every aspect of society. The fringe tail is going to wag the dog.

As far as threats on politicians go, call me cynical, I am not up on the reports other than it has been "reported." Is there hard statistical data? Perhaps there is if so, if valid, than I will accept it. Short of that it seems a tad bit too convenient as after the fact info to justify reactionary jumping to conclusions. How many congress people have recently taken increased security measures above and beyond what they already take? How many have cut back thier activities, changed their routine if the threats were serious? Are the nature of the threats different than normal? Has the government agencies upped their activities in response? Why are Congress people now going to have to increase their security when the threats were so overwhelming? Shouldn't they already have done it? Why didn't House leadership provide for Giffords protection? How have those threats compared to the Bush Administration when the left fringe was screaming that Bush was illegitimate after the Florida incident?

If the rhetoric and the people spouting the rhetoric are so violent, where is the violence? Where is the police blotter reports from the massive tea bagger violence running rampant through the country?

There is no such thing as overheated speech. What is next, overheated movies? Overheated music? Overheated anti-war speech from the left was at the time lauded as "patriotic". Many leaders on the left called it "our duty" to speak out.

As you know I am no Tea Bagger fan nor Euro Pacific Brokerage groupie, however, the left simply does not get to take an incident, create their own narrative, frame a debate that doesn't exist, exaggerate facts, and draw conclusions that don't exist in attempt to quell dissent against their own ideas, trample on others rights because they don't agree with their views, and try to smooth the path of resistance going forward. If the right tried to exploit an incident in similar matter the left would go orbital.

If you buy the poll numbers, 60% of the country is not buying it. They smelled the ole flea flicker right out.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

You're the cop. Please answer the question when you find time. Thanks.

If you're looking for an open discussion into the disorderly conduct statute then I am happy to oblige. If you're wanting to bait me (and judging in the sarcastic way you worded your question, you are) into some type of "this is why I dislike cops" back-and-forth, then what's the point? You will still have your viewpoint and I will still have mine.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Are you serious? You don't see the distinction between Limbaugh and Dupnik? Suppose your neighbors 16 year old daughter falsely accuses you of raping her. As they are arresting you, in front of whatever hot reporter KSL news sends to cover the story, Sheriff Dupnik rolls up and goes on a political rant about how he is not surprised given the level of internet porn that people like you watch and surf on the internet all day. Not to mention you listen to that crazy music you kids listen to today, raping your neighbor is a natural extension.

I mean He is just saying some real **** right?

Come dude, stop and think instead of reacting emotionally. You hate this political crap yet you are falling for the trap.

The only portion of the quote that I saw was the one that I posted in this thread, which I happen to agree with. If somewhere he stated that the media hate directly caused the violence (similar to the hypothetical scenario you wrote) then I agree that he was absolutely in the wrong. I'm sure that I did react, in part, emotionally to a statement that I read and agreed with. I dunno Pearl, I'm just at a point right now where I am utterly frustrated with politics as everytime I turn on the TV I'm being told by a talking head why liberals/conservatives are wicked. I can't think of anytime in recent memory where a Politician was truly able to reach across the aisle and compromise.

 

[The Pearl]

The only portion of the quote that I saw was the one that I posted in this thread, which I happen to agree with. If somewhere he stated that the media hate directly caused the violence (similar to the hypothetical scenario you wrote) then I agree that he was absolutely in the wrong. I'm sure that I did react, in part, emotionally to a statement that I read and agreed with. I dunno Pearl, I'm just at a point right now where I am utterly frustrated with politics as everytime I turn on the TV I'm being told by a talking head why liberals/conservatives are wicked. I can't think of anytime in recent memory where a Politician was truly able to reach across the aisle and compromise.

The system is not designed to comprise. This compromise myth is garbage and total nonsense. Everybody buys into it because the politicians spout it and than do everything to foil it. If there were rampant compromise there would be no need for elections and there would be literally thousands and thousands of laws. The system is designed to be deliberative and glacial.

You have the majority and the votes, you make the laws. That is is it, nothing more, nothing less. If you are the majority and the public feels you abuse your authority, the voters will change the mix.

 

[PearlWatson]

Once again, not knowing the man I couldn't say how much he knew or did not know about Loughner. I attempted to look it up, but all I could find were allegations that Dupnik knew that Loughner had past involvements with law enforcement. Even though Loughner had been making death threats, you would be surprised at how hard it is to get someone institutionalized. Sometimes the best that law enforcement can do is involuntarily commit someone to a local hospital until that hospital staff approves of their release into the community (which is usually a week, sometimes more, sometimes less), and that takes a type of "probable cause".

As for "unprofessional", I'm not going to fault the man for speaking his mind on what he feels is part of the problem. I didn't take from his quote that he was blaming radio personalities for the murders specifically, but that they, in a way, are part of the problem of the political mood in this country. Do you feel that the various radio personalities that I mentioned above are helping the situation?

Also, not sure if you live in the Tucson area or not, you may be informed on the Sheriff's political platform then I am. I, like most of the country, learned of him through this tragic event. However, I found truth in the aforementioned quote. Whether it comes from a caring civil servant or a transparently pandering politician, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

The timing (<---before the victims even made it to the hospital) of the Sheriff's opinion on the state of the political mood sure makes it appear he was blaming them for the murders...and follow up interviews confirmed it. I wasn't aware of him (or Giffords) before this happened, but I didn't know Kanye West before he said Bush hated black people either. They are both equally insufferable for their posturing.