Originally Posted By mele Well, it looks like I am still unable to type a coherent sentence again today. Should be a fun day at work...;-)
Originally Posted By mawnck Hoo boy. Westboro Baptist is protesting the funeral of the 9-year-old girl. And an interesting response is being planned: >>They're planning an "angel action" -- with 8- by 10-foot "angel wings" worn by participants and used to shield mourners from pickets. The actions were created by Coloradan Romaine Patterson, who was shocked to find the Topeka church and its neon signs outside the 1999 funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a young gay man beaten and left on a fence to die in Laramie, Wyoming. "We want to surround them, in a nonviolent way, to say that our community is united," Gilmer said. "We're a peaceful haven.<< >>Republicans, Democrats, independents, right, left and center -- they've all offered their support. Forty-two people have signed up on a Facebook page called "Build Angel Wings for the Westboro Funeral Counter-Protest and Meeting," and more than 4,500 have signed up on another page to "Show Support for the Families of the Tucson Shooting Victims." "People, businesses, they're all donating material and money to build the angel wings," said Gilmer, who is helping organize the action. She added they're donating to a fund created to help pay for services for the shooting victims.<< <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox For those individuals who didn't catch Rachel Maddow's show last night, there's a clip on HuffPost of her report regarding mass shootings in our country, and trying to understand why they happen, and what we can possibly do to prevent them from happening in the future. She presents very chilling statistics regarding the other massacres that happened in the past and gun ownership in America. I highly recommend watching it: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rachel-maddow-arizona-shooting_n_807212.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...212.html</a> <> Rachel Maddow began her first show after the shooting in Arizona by raising a tough question: how will the next one be prevented? She started by running through a long, painful list of some of the mass shootings that have occurred in America since the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was born 22 years ago. After reeling off over a dozen different incidents, Maddow turned to the words that are often used to describe them, such as "unimaginable." "It is hard for anybody to find the words to express the horror and the anger and the grief that are the only rational responses to massacres like this," she said. "But the one thing that events like this are not, in America, now, is inconceivable or unimaginable." She noted that the list she had read was only a partial one, that the United States is by far the most heavily armed country in the world, and that roughly 82 people are shot to death in America every day. And she said that the question on peoples' minds right now should not be whether political rhetoric contributed to the Arizona shooting, or what Loughner's motivation might be: "Whether political rhetoric motivated this kid or not, whether this kid was sane enough to process political rhetoric as sane people understand it or not, whether we will understand sooner or later or never the motivation behind this kid...here's the question: do we have any tools to stop the next gun massacre?" <>
Originally Posted By mawnck Meanwhile, mental illness pros are weighing in with their perspective: >>This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.<< >>[Y]our chance of being murdered by a stranger with schizophrenia is so vanishingly small that a recent study of four Western countries put the figure at one in 14.3 million. To put it in perspective, statistics show you are about three times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike. The fact that mental illness is so often used to explain violent acts despite the evidence to the contrary almost certainly flows from how such cases are handled in the media. Numerous studies show that crimes by people with psychiatric problems are over-reported, usually with gross inaccuracies that give a false impression of risk. With this constant misrepresentation, it's not surprising that the public sees mental illness as an easy explanation for heartbreaking events. We haven't yet learned all the details of the tragic shooting in Arizona, but I suspect mental illness will be falsely accused many times over.<< <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The one statistic Rachel pointed to that's very numbing, is the fact that as of 2007, the US is the most heavily armed nation on the planet, with 90 guns for every 100 people. Yemen is the second most heavily armed, with 61 guns for every 100 people. Think about that: 90 guns for every 100 Americans. That one fact alone makes me sick to my stomach. We need to stop the gun related rhetoric. Referring to Second Amendment Remedies, encouraging participants to show up to political rallies with sidearms, and shouting out bumper sticker phrases such as, "Don't retreat... RELOAD!!" are irresponsible and deliberate acts to foment anger and hate towards members of the opposing party. It's deliberately playing on people's fears. Constantly referring to the opposing party as "evil Socialists who must be taken out" is not how mature adults address the problems of the nation. It's childish and dangerous and it needs to stop. There can be only one logical conclusion for continuous, non-stop grandstanding such as this, and it looks an awful lot like what happened in Tucson on Saturday. No good can ever come of it. Campaigns can be won with less violent campaign slogans and references. It's time to change the political discourse in our nation and quit acting like the Second Civil War is about to begin.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "^^ That's fine with me. Holding anyones speech accountable for the actions of a madman though isn't." Wow. Seemingly getting the point, and then immediately missing it again (by arguing against what no one said) in one paragraph.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's at least as ignorant to pretend that most of it isn't coming from one direction, at least at this moment in time. This false equivalence is lazy, not correct, and not helpful.
Originally Posted By ecdc As we gain a couple of days distance from the event, more commentators are emerging - and not just from the tea party - to point out that there's no evidence that it was right-wing rhetoric that caused this man to do what he did. Jon Stewart and David Brooks jump to mind. I've found these commentaries to be intelligent and not without merit. What disturbs me, however, is that they're even necessary. Whether or not Jared Lee Loughner had a map from Sarah Palin with crosshairs on it seems less important than the fact that the map exists at all. Whether or not Loughner was a fan of Glenn Beck, it's easy to find a correlation between what Beck says and his behavior. As the commentators have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation. All too true, but why on earth is there a correlation at all? Why does this speech exist where we can point to multiple statements and examples and say "He may have been going off of that." These statements have no place at all in our society, regardless of who they do or don't influence.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Did people like Beck and Palin "cause" Loughner to shoot all of those people? Of course not. But they are responsible for creating such an intensely hostile political environment. Anyone who goes to a political rally and starts shooting is mentally unstable but what happens when someone who is unhinged anyway is constantly bombarded with hateful rhetoric? They believe it and they snap. People have been saying since 2008 that if the rhetoric isn't dialed down, someone will get hurt. It does not take a genius to figure that out. And guess what? It happened. It happened last year when someone cut the gas lines to a congressman's brother's house, when Eric Cantor's office was shot up, when multiple house members were insulted and spit on while going to vote on healthcare, when multiple congressmen reported threats. And this time, it has escalated to a shooting spree. It is time for people to stop saying that there is no correlation, that those who scream at the top of their lungs are not the least bit responsible when their actions directly or indirectly lead to violence. They have the right to say anything they choose but they should be prepared to be held accountable when it comes back to bite them in rear. And guess what- if Sarah Palin wasn't feeling at least a little guilty, she would not have gone on the defensive or taken down her map so quickly. It was almost immediately after the shooting.
Originally Posted By wendebird re: post 165 >Furthermore, why is it that in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy the most visible right wing media personalities like Rush and Sarah won't admit that they've taken the rhetoric to far and that it's high time that we change the tone of the political discourse in this country?<< Can't speak for Rush or Palin, but I heard on The View today that Roger Ailes fro FOX News made this statement: "I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually," Ailes said. You don't have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that." <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/fox-ceo-shut-up-tone-it-down/" target="_blank">http://www.care2.com/causes/po...it-down/</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Princessjenn you've basically said what I was going to say earlier today, but decided to pass. The news organizations, particularly Fox News, clearly have a model in place designed to excite and drive viewers to their channels based on violent rhetoric. It doesn't matter if the Tucson Massacre was committed by a Fox/Palin conservative or not. It's just a matter of time before someone who is conservative nutjob does something similar or worse if the right doesn’t cool it with the fear mongering.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I just don't see a ton of violent rhetoric. Beck had a funny(?) bit about killing Michael Moore 5 years ago, and Palin had an inappropriate poster made. Granted. But when I've heard anything from Beck it's been about "become a better person" and "here are some values and princples." He does spout a lot of "the socialists are coming" stuff but rarely, rarely hints that we need to take up arms.
Originally Posted By Labuda I can't tell you how disappointed I am for you inserting the word "funny" in the above post, Josh. Shame on you.
Originally Posted By Labuda Oh, and as for Beck "rarely" hinting that we need to take up arms... how about he NEVER hint that we need to take up arms? ARGH
Originally Posted By ecdc >>He does spout a lot of "the socialists are coming" stuff but rarely, rarely hints that we need to take up arms.<< How do you think people will react to being told their way of life is threatened and that their government is overrun with socialist enemies? Glenn Beck said the food safety bill would lead to starvation. How else are people (who are actual stupid enough to believe something like that) going to react when they're told the government is laying the foundation for the very starvation of their children. Glenn Beck doesn't have to tell everyone to go get their guns to incite a fear so intense that people feel like their only recourse is violence. Tell that to the director of the Tides Foundation who's lucky a Glenn Beck fan was caught and imprisoned before he shot up the place.
