posted
Geraine: I have noticed that there are times where I agree with Beck. But not with enough consistency, that I listen as much as I used to.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
Why is the "just as guilty" thing so important on the right? Do you really think that the left is as inflammatory right now as the right? It seems to me that, at least at the moment, the crazies on the left (9/11 was an inside job!) are well defined as crazies, while the crazies on the right are mainstream enough that, for instance, multiple Republican congressmen have been unwilling to concede that Obama is definitely a natural born citizen.
This means that more hyperbolic demagoguery (death panels!) can happen on the right which becomes part of the accepted message of popular right wing figures and their acolytes.
posted
The idea that Martin Luther King and Gandhi did not excoriate their political opponents for perceived misbehavior is one that baffles me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
i never used the word 'censorship' in my post. i wasnt even referring to that. but i was referring to exactly what you describe: shaming people or manipulating them into feeling undue guilt for the actions of others. theres no evidence the shooter listened to conservative talk-radio or held people like palin in high regard. in fact there has been considerable talk that he was just the opposite: that he shunned all mainstream media outlets, both left and right.
and assuming loughner did listen to and believe deeply things said on far-right talk radio, by which standard or measure do you ascribe co-guilt in a case such as this? i said this before and no one addressed it. is sarah palin even 1% guilt in the shooting even though there is zero proof of any connection? there are too many unknown variables that are being filled in using speculation. i still havent seen a convincing argument with proof that a) the top 5 or so far-right talking heads have b) created a toxic and hostile political environment where c) violent acts are encouraged and condoned. the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly.
in a society that values open dialogue and public involvement, you shouldnt have to tailor what you say because some emotionally traumatized basement crazy, indoctrinate with, among other things, communist ideas and zeitgeist conspiracy theories, is going to snap one day and go on a shooting rampage.
i see the point a few here are trying to make and i just dont buy it. i like having respectful discussions and i respect most of the posters here, but i get the impression that instead of acknowledging a different view point and that some might perceive and interpret things differently, some people just say 'you dont get it' and dismiss the other persons point entirely.
blackblade: i dont listen to or support beck and i only hear what he says through the liberal lense of his opponents but i like what you said, especially the last two paragraphs. i dont like the polemics and deceptive, argumentative rhetoric but i find hope in all the moderate debate and commentary which i see as being much more prevalent. if there werent people at each end of the spectrum screaming nonsense it would feel like somethings not right with the system.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly
Short of lapsing into civil war, what would a violent political environment look like?
Pakistan currently? Or Lebannon? Or any number of other countries where political assassination and violent rioting occasionally occur and are seen as a viable methods of opposition.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Capax- nobody here is calling for censorship. They are calling for these people to tone down their rhetoric. You can silence someone by shaming them with their own words. That isn't an abridgment of anyone's free speech.
Additionally, it is not being claimed here, by anyone, that these were real, intentional incitements to violent acts. We are claiming, with a great deal of justice, that they are appeals to violent and aggressive feelings which can turn people to violent acts of their own. As I said earlier, and which you and Geoff and several others ignored completely: you are not guilty of the actions of others, but you *are* responsible for your own rhetoric, which can be a powerful force. Guilt and responsibility are not the same things.
i never used the word 'censorship' in my post. i wasnt even referring to that. but i was referring to exactly what you describe: shaming people or manipulating them into feeling undue guilt for the actions of others.
I specifically said "responsibility," and I specifically said "shame." I also specifically said *not* guilt. I also specifically indicated that I believe that there is a difference between responsibility and guilt and that I believe conservative pundits are *responsible* for the things they say and their contributions to the atmosphere, but that they are not *guilty* of other people's actions. I cannot be more clear.
And while I'm well aware you didn't say "censorship," if that was not the indication you wished to make, you were far from clear. If your only argument was that we shouldn't address the way conservatives have been talking, and hold them publicly responsible for that, even though they are not guilty of any crime, then I just disagree with you. The fact is that we are living in a political environment which long before this incident became infused with notions of aggression, fear, and violent opposition. The patron of this board even exhorted violent opposition to the government over at least one social/political in the last year. This event brings focus to that environment. It is not less valid to adress that issue now. I do so not out of a desire to score political points. I do not believe the democrats are participating in this atmosphere of violent rhetoric to any degree approaching the conservative clamor. That is a fair judgement to make, and it can be made apolitically.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the political enviroment is heated but its not violent and its not deadly
Short of lapsing into civil war, what would a violent political environment look like?
Pakistan currently? Or Lebannon? Or any number of other countries where political assassination and violent rioting occasionally occur and are seen as a viable methods of opposition.
Lebannon is actually a very good example, as Hezbollah just picked up their ball and walked away. A sign many people see as them gearing up for violence.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Palin or Conservatives in general are not innocent at all, but Democrats are just as guilty.
Why is the "just as guilty" thing so important on the right?
The "BOTH parties are in the wrong" stuff is just more of the false dynamic that shifts the blame away from the people who really are throwing fuel on the fire.
Insisting on a false equivalence between the two sides is usually very important to the side which is much worse at whatever's being talked about. It's such a common thread for the GOP in recent years that I think I even predicted it in this thread before the argument was legitimately passed on.
The 'lock and load' rhetoric that's been gaining steam in right-wing circles is having a negative effect, was reprehensible to begin with, and we have an obligation to criticize it from its true sources in measured proportion. Right-wingers don't want measured proportion, apparently (maybe not, I can look into it seriously, but this thread and its representative right-wingers makes it seem so). They want to pretend both sides are equally to blame, now that it's become a political liability in earnest.
For what it's worth though, I don't turn this into a general screed against all people on the right. Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I linked a quote from just a few months ago where a Congressman said a candidate for Governor should be put up against a wall and shot.
Obama has made comments. Biden has. So have many other Democrats. The difference is that all of the sudden these conservative quotes are the ones that are hyped as being inflammatory and violent. I'll bet you never heard any outrage over Obama, Biden, or the Congressman's violent quotes. If you did, where were you then, decrying the violent rhetoric?
I've made it very clear that I think it is wrong no matter who is doing it. What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric. I'm not justifying the action. I'm not blaming one side or the other. I'm saying that they should practice what they preach.
quote:They want to pretend both sides are equally to blame, now that it's become a political liability in earnest.
I'd like to point out that rhetoric like this has not been what you consider a "political liability" for over 200 years. Now all of the sudden the left has tried to make it one.
But hey, never let a good crisis go to waste, right?
ETA: The best thing Obama can do tonight during his speech is use the time to decry the action and to comfort the families. I hope he doesn't bring politics into it.
In the State of the Union address he could then ask everyone to be kinder and more respectful and to tone down the rhetoric.
"I'll bet you never heard any outrage over Obama, Biden, or the Congressman's violent quotes."
And this. Particularly the idea that their speech has been notably violent. Particularly that such violent speech was aimed at political opponents rather than, say, terrorists, criminals, enemies of freedom and democracy, etc etc. Nobody here is crooning over Bush and Cheney "rooting out evil," because that kind of talk is justified and well directed, even if their policies and actions weren't.
Notice, Samp is talking about *proportion.* That is, where is this coming from *most*? That is the part of this that he is accusing you of dismissing, which you just... did.
""I'd like to point out that rhetoric like this has not been what you consider a "political liability" for over 200 years. Now all of the sudden the left has tried to make it one. "
What? I mean really, what? Support of violence against the United States is a major political liability around the world. Violent rhetoric is a major political liability. Really, clarify, please, what in the world are you talking about?
"In the State of the Union address he could then ask everyone to be kinder and more respectful and to tone down the rhetoric."
Honestly, I'm just flabbergasted. What do you think he's been doing for two years? What do you think he's been doing, at his own political peril, for two years? Because I and a lot of liberals on this board have noted our frustration with him over his tendency towards *appeasement* of his political opponents. I don't feel like a partsan shill. I don't believe in all of Obama's policies, but seriously, the man has bent over backwards and been snapped in half trying to keep things on an even keel.
"What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric"
Kay. We all grasp that you are referring to this. We do not believe such an hypocrisy exists in this case. Nor do we suggest that this is indeed a monopoly on violent rhetoric. It is a preponderance of violent rhetoric, certainly a controlling market share of violent rhetoric, a majority of violent rhetoric, but a monopoly on such a thing doesn't exist, and never could exist, and has never been suggested as having ever existed, by anyone here.
Is it impossible for you to accept the idea that the conservatives are simply representative of a larger share of this kind of rhetoric? Is that idea simply right out? Through-scored? Unimaginable? If they did represent a significantly larger share, would that matter to you? Would it mean anything? Does it have to be 100%, or 50%, and nowhere in between? Would the implications of their having a larger share of the violent rhetoric on their actual outlook and motivations have any meaning to you at all? Would it indicate anything significant to you about them and the way they think other than that they simply talked this way more?
posted
What Geraine is talking about is stuff like "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun". The Right has made a point of scouring every word of Obama's on record and has come up with maybe 5 or 6 quotes that in some way invoke violent imagery.
Nothing like the "2nd amendment solution" and various other references to actually addressing grievances with real as opposed to metaphorical violence that the right is pretty much exclusively producing.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I've made it very clear that I think it is wrong no matter who is doing it. What it seems you are not grasping is that I am referring to the hypocrisy of those accusing conservatives of having a monopoly on violent rhetoric.
And who is saying that conservatives have a monopoly on violent rhetoric? You are AGAIN missing that this is not about saying that conservatives have 100% of the blame and that liberals never do anything like this. It is about trying to make the claim that we can not criticize conservatives any more than we criticize liberals, which is stupidly false in this case.
/ geraine, my last post to you had this in it.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Where is it being commonly said that conservatives have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the violent rhetoric?
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
capaxinfiniti, you should read my post again, these questions you are asking me have so little to do with anything I had actually posted ..
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: how can you blame the entire right-wing for what you believe to be a toxic and violent political environment? they pioneered it?
capaxinfiniti, you should read my post again, these questions you are asking me have so little to do with anything I had actually posted ..
i just re-read it. youre going to have to elaborate because whatever youre hinting at isnt clear to me.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The political left has been trying for a number of years now to curtail public expression of conservative views, through such apparently innocent-sounding ideas as the "fairness doctrine," which provides equal time for the expression of opposing viewpoints. This sounds fine, except that conservatives not only vastly outnumber leftwingers, but conservative talk shows and TV shows are extremely popular and high-rated, while so few people tune in to the few attempts at liberal talk radio, etc., that they can't make it financially. Fox News, which simply tries to offer "fair and balanced reporting" routinely has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and other left-leaning cable news networks combined. So the so-called fairness doctrine would have the effect of taking Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reille, Rush Limbaugh, etc., off the air, just because liberals cannot compete with them.
Now liberals are trying to paint conservatives as the major offenders in ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, for the same ulterior motive--to shut down the conservative voices that they otherwise cannot compete with fairly.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or it could just be that liberals are tired of being called traitors and having their lives threatened. Who knows which is more likely?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually kind of impressed at how inaccurate that was. I'm looking for a single sentence that doesn't contain a falsehood but so far I'm coming up empty.
The political left has been trying for a number of years now to curtail public expression of conservative views, through such apparently innocent-sounding ideas as the "fairness doctrine," which provides equal time for the expression of opposing viewpoints.
I believe most people on the left would like to curtail propaganda, rabble-rousing, and outright lies. While I'm sure many of them would like to see more liberal views espoused and fewer conservative ones, it's not the conservative position that's really the problem. Liberals can often work with conservatives. But it's very difficult to work with sworn enemies who accuse you at every turn of treason. And if they are hoping for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine they're remarkably lazy about it. There's been mention here and there, but no legislation for it has been introduced in over 6 years.
This sounds fine, except that conservatives not only vastly outnumber leftwingers, but conservative talk shows and TV shows are extremely popular and high-rated, while so few people tune in to the few attempts at liberal talk radio, etc., that they can't make it financially.
This was almost true -- right wing shows definitely draw bigger audiences, by a massive margin -- but that outnumbering thing caught you. Link, please? I went looking for a breakdown of the parties and didn't find a good source for one. Latest I could find was 2004, when about 55 million citizens were registered Republicans and about 72 million were registered Democrats. A 2008 Pew Research paper says it runs 51% Dem to 38% Rep.
Fox News, which simply tries to offer "fair and balanced reporting" routinely has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and other left-leaning cable news networks combined.
Fox News speaks to its base. Aside from the fairly obvious bits of bias you can see there every day, several memos have surfaced over the past few months that show Fox execs handing down what the spin needed to be. Fox News itself is slightly better than the rest of its programming, but the rest of the programming on that channel is so overwhelmingly anti-Democrat it's hard to tell. You're right about the ratings, though.
So the so-called fairness doctrine would have the effect of taking Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reille, Rush Limbaugh, etc., off the air, just because liberals cannot compete with them.
Now liberals are trying to paint conservatives as the major offenders in ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, for the same ulterior motive--to shut down the conservative voices that they otherwise cannot compete with fairly.
So close. But you continue to baldly state that liberals are fighting against conservatives, when mostly the people who are fighting are fighting against nutjob conservatives. They would like some control levied against those who openly lie and spew venom and poison the political process by making it impossible for anyone to work together.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: This was almost true -- right wing shows definitely draw bigger audiences, by a massive margin -- but that outnumbering thing caught you. Link, please? I went looking for a breakdown of the parties and didn't find a good source for one. Latest I could find was 2004, when about 55 million citizens were registered Republicans and about 72 million were registered Democrats. A 2008 Pew Research paper says it runs 51% Dem to 38% Rep.
Just to play a little devil's advocacy here (or maybe go under the guise of fairness), the 2008 report is dated. Democrats do outnumber Republicans by a fairly health margin, though self-describing independents outnumber the both of them. When leaners are taken into account, these days there's only a 1 point gap between democrats and republicans.
But what's more at issue is we have a little bit of apples to oranges going here. Ron was talking about liberals and conservatives, not democrats and republicans. When you go with political ideology, conservatives dooutnumber liberals by a healthy margin. Self-identifying Republicans have become a fairly homogenous group as far as ideology is concerned with far more identifying with conservative than democrats identifying with liberal. Indeed, within the democratic party, liberals and moderates have only a 1 point gap separating them.
ETA: You're spot on with everything else though. /ETA
And just to add to the record, I'm not asking conservatives to stop expressing their political viewpoint. I'm asking that folks own up to their rhetoric. I'm concerned by the violent tone our country has taken. Many conservative cases have been pointed out. But there are liberal cases too, I admit it. Like Gwar disemboweling Sarah Palin in effigy at their concerts. I'm not cool with that, and I loathe Sarah Palin. Yeah, Gwar is free to express themselves that way. But just because you're free to do or say something doesn't mean you should.
The finger pointing of who went violent first, who is violent more often, and who deserves more blame is ridiculous. Can't we be parental to our fringe elements and say, "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it*?"
quote:[W]hen a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
quote:[W]hat we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
quote:The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Gerraine: Whether or not conservatives need to tone down their rhetoric is *completely* again I say, *completely* unrelated to what liberals are doing. It's the right thing to do, so do it! If we all wait for everyone else to live at a standard before we are willing to live it ourselves, no positive change can take place.
posted
Weak-Dead, there are exceptions. While usually apostrophes indicate possession (or contractions), in some cases the apostrophe must be omitted for possession. Example: It's clear to see that its color is blue. To make it even worse, sometimes you have to leave off the "s": "That is the Johnsons' house."
What can we expect? English is a trainwreck between Anglo-Saxon and Norman French, with Latin and Greek roots all stirred up in the mix. Although, come to think of it, I do not recall that Koiné Greek or Latin had much punctuation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm aware of that, Ron. It's not relevant to the issue at hand. I'm an English teacher myself. Start with what you have, finish with what you want.
The key issue here is clarity. There are multiple takes from different style guides on plural possessives, but the way he is using the apostrophe is just plain wrong. It's out of laziness, I suspect- not a lack of comprehension.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Weak-Dead, there are exceptions. While usually apostrophes indicate possession (or contractions), in some cases the apostrophe must be omitted for possession. Example: It's clear to see that its color is blue.
That's because "its" is already by definition a possessive word, like "his" or "hers", it's not actually an exception at all.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough, jebus202. But it still looks like an exception, though, that confuses people all the time whether to use it's or its.
Orincoro, I am so used to putting up with blatant misspellings of so many basic words in forums like this, that it seems pedantic to quibble over punctuation protocols. Those are the least of our problems. If you even start to make an issue out of all the misspellings, you get accused of being a "spelling nazi." That's apparently something like being a "grammar nazi," which some seem to believe is even worse.
I do admit, sometimes it does get a bit appalling to discover how many people seem to be unable to speak and write their own native language. Especially we Americans, who generally are too aloof to bother learning any other languages.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, I just noticed, I misspelled Week_Dead Possum's name. I spelled it Weak-Dead. Sorry about that. Wasn't deliberate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahem. Getting back on topic, I think it is wonderful news that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes, and when her husband asked if she could see him, she moved her arm and hand and gave a thumbs-up. He also asked her to touch his ring, and she did; then he asked her to touch his watch, and she did. There were several other people in the room, friends and colleagues from Congress, who were thrilled to see this. This demonstrates that she really can see, and that she can comprehend instructions and comply with them. It also of course demonstrates that she can hear and understand what she hears. Now we need to see if she can talk, and if so, with how much of her former facility and acuity. Wouldn't it truly be nothing less than a true miracle if she can come all the way back--regain all her faculties, so she can return to her seat in the House of Representatives? Right now she still has the breathing tube in to protect her airways, even though she is breathing on her own. When doctors decide to remove the breathing tube, then maybe we can see if and how well she can talk. Then they can start to test her memory, long-term and short-term.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One tea party leader says that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has herself to blame for getting shot in the head Saturday.
The Arizona congresswoman shouldn't have attended an event "in full view of the public" if she had security concerns, according to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries.
Giffords warned MSNBC's Chuck Todd last year that there would be "consequences" to violent rhetoric and imagery after Fox News' Sarah Palin released a graphic which placed crosshairs over the congresswoman's district.
"But the thing is that the way that [Palin] has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said. "And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action."
But Humphries thinks Giffords was just speaking out against Palin for political gain.
"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
"For all the stuff they accuse [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we're hearing right now."
"There are people who are genuinely confused, scared, and I understand it. But there are also people who are deliberately manipulating this event and tragedy for political ends," Humpries added.
From what I can tell from the quote you posted, Humphries is saying suggestions that Giffords was truly concerned for her personal safety are contradicted by the fact that she had no personal security at the event. He's responding to the portion of the population who are pointing to Palin's map and saying something like this was bound to happen, and that furthermore Giffords knew it. You might not find his contradictory evidence very persuasive (I'm certainly not convinced it means very much), but he's in no way saying that 'she has herself to blame.'
Was that a quote from somewhere, or your own personal thoughts?
<edit>It apparently comes courtesy of Crooks and Liars. Following their link-thru to the Guardian article verifies that Humphries was talking specifically about the suggestion that Giffords was concerned for her life, that she took her own complaints about the violence Palin's map might bring seriously. The excerpts from the Guardian interview show a relatively thoughtful, concerned individual who expresses his sadness, his respect for Giffords as a political opponent, and his concern over how this event will impact people's desire to engage in political dialogue in the future. It is not a portait of an angry, selfish, cold-hearted man. I think Crooks & Liars take, which you posted here, is significantly twisting the facts to make him into a convenient enemy.</edit>
posted
I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it. She needs to heal a little more before she is saddled with that huge a burden of grief. Her friend, the federal judge--personal staff members wounded or killed (I forgot how many). And that nine year-old girl, Christina Green--so pretty, so optimistic, just won election to the student council at her elementary school, brought there by a neighbor to see a woman who was successful in politics, born on 9/11/01. I just hope whoever tells Rep. Giffords keeps stressing to her that it was not her fault. She did not get those people killed. It's likely going to prey on her. If she does recover fully enough that she can return to her seat in Congress, I suspect she will never again host such an open, public event without any security. Nobody will. And to the extent that makes a further separation between us and our elected officials, that is a loss for our whole society.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I was thinking about that a little while ago, AchillesHeel, wondering if they have told her yet how many people were shot, and how many died, and especially who died. Maybe one reason they are keeping the breathing tube in is so she cannot ask about it.
What??
ron is just saying that considering it wont benefit her recovery, theres no need at the moment to burden her with the details. the breathing tube comment was the most irrelevant part of his post. im surprised you took issue with it.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im surprised you took issue with it.
The most irrelevant? Because what kind of quack doctor is going to leave someone intubated for that???
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
I really think that's an exceedingly uncharitable reading of what Humphries is saying. What I got from the Guardian interview, was that he was asked if tea-party supported violent rhetoric, like Palin's map, was partly to blame for Laughner's actions. He's responding first by saying there's no evidence of any link between Laughner and any of the rhetoric, and second by saying no one really believed before the event that any of the rhetoric had significantly changed the likelihood of violence. In support of this idea, he says that Giffords didn't feel the need for personal security at a public event.
It may be a weak justification for the issue he's discussing, but 'blame-the-victim' it isn't.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some choice statements from the comment section of the Crooks and Liars story:
quote:These people are troglodytes
quote:Worthless Teabaggers
quote:These "people" truly are subhuman. Pond scum.
quote:What a worthless piece of human excrement.
quote:[A]re these people even human?This totally makes me sick if anything.All these people just don't even get it, they have got to be totally mindless zombies.
quote:Palin's teabaggers are some really sick *** terrorists and killers.
quote:Have I said tonight how much I hate these people?
quote:[W]hat we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another.
That last one wasn't on the comment board. Someone else said it, somewhere.
<edit>This is just to say, the Crooks & Liars blog serves members of a certain subpopulation of the liberal community that really like demonizing their political opposition. In this case, the site members' collective normative bias has caused them to significantly misrepresent something a political opponent has said.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im surprised you took issue with it.
The most irrelevant? Because what kind of quack doctor is going to leave someone intubated for that???
yeah. do you really feel it necessary to comment on ron's speculation given that you two almost never agree?
i imagine you reading the thread and getting to ron's post:
"what!? ron said something from way left-field? im going to call him on it because god knows no one else will and it needs to be done!"
seriously..
What do you expect to accomplish with this post? So there's something really weird that Ron says in a post, and I really do wonder what the heck he's talking about, but I should just not ask, to make you feel better?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It's political gamesmanship," he told the Guardian. "The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?"
(facepalm) I love "blame-the-victim".
I really think that's an exceedingly uncharitable reading of what Humphries is saying. What I got from the Guardian interview, was that he was asked if tea-party supported violent rhetoric, like Palin's map, was partly to blame for Laughner's actions. He's responding first by saying there's no evidence of any link between Laughner and any of the rhetoric, and second by saying no one really believed before the event that any of the rhetoric had significantly changed the likelihood of violence. In support of this idea, he says that Giffords didn't feel the need for personal security at a public event.
It may be a weak justification for the issue he's discussing, but 'blame-the-victim' it isn't.
Conversely, in the Glenn Beck clip linked earlier Beck stated he spends something in the neighborhood of $1 million on his personal security. Guess that means liberals have literally declared war on him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Conversely, in the Glenn Beck clip linked earlier Beck stated he spends something in the neighborhood of $1 million on his personal security. Guess that means liberals have literally declared war on him.
Or that he's paranoid. Or concerned about one of his own 'followers.'
I think the correlation between feeling endangered and being endangered is not always strong. People feel unsafe on airplanes, but safe in their cars. Parents keep their kids away from strangers but let them play unattended around unfenced pools. We're very prone to availability bias in such things, and Glenn Beck dwells a lot (from what I've heard) on frightening scenarios that would make him more prone to beefing up security than others, perhaps.
Furthermore, in Giffords' case, the non-existence of security doesn't necessarily demonstrate she was unconcerned for her safety, or that her comments about Palin's map were simply political posturing. Like I said, Humphries' evidence doesn't strongly support his point, but he's not blaming Giffords for getting shot.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am surprised that anyone took issue with my speculation about an additional reason for leaving the breathing tube in Rep. Giffords. For those who may not remember, a few days ago doctors removed her from the artificial respirator, and she has been breathing on her own ever since. BUT they left in the breathing tube--they SAID, to protect her airways. I was merely suggesting that an additional reason might have been to prevent her from asking questions that doctors do not want to answer until she is stronger. To my knowledge, doctors have not yet removed the breathing tube.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has been some criticism of Rep. Giffords for having such an open-to-the-public meeting with no security at all, after the threats she had aleady received, including a prior contact with Loughner. Most congress people, when trying to touch base with their constituents, sit in their local office and allow people to come in to see them--in a more controlled setting.
But Giffords has done this before, a few other office-holders have, and nothing has happened. It is always easier to criticize in hindsight than to take foresight seriously.
I think that one unfortunate consequence of this tragedy is that office-holders will not dare to be quite so freely accessible to the public. I think our society is less, just as our society is less because in most places, we cannot leave our doors unlocked any more. (I can remember when we seldom locked our doors.) Things change, and not always for the better.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
