Political & Elections

Bogney · Senior Member

RE: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in Arizona

busdriver11 · Guru

There you go again, winchester. Messing everything up with the facts!

winchester · Guru

Bogney asked:

what are the other non politically motivated political assassinations that you are referring to?

All of the data is in the Secret Service study, which I provided a link to. For convenience, here are some excerpts:

This study is the first operational exploration of the thinking and behavior of all 83 persons known to have attacked, or approached to attack, a prominent public official or public figure in the United States since 1949.

While subjects who made an approach with weapons and also made threats were included in the study, people who made threats without making approaches with weapons were not included.

"Prominent persons of public status were identified as:

- Persons protected by the Sected Service (the President, the Vice President, their families, former Presidents, candidates for president, visiting heads of states.
- Other major federal officials and office holders (cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, federal judges)
- Celebrities, such as sports figures, and movie, television, radio and enternainment notables
- Presidents and chief executives of major corporations

The "Principal Incident" was defines as the most violent of the following types of acts:

(1) Assassination of a prominent person of public status.
(2) Attack on a prominent person of public status.
(3) Approach to a prominent person of public status with a lethal weapon

Eighty three individuals participated in 74 Principal Incidents. There were six attacks by groups, involving 16 subjects. One subject mounted an attack on two public figures.

From a table entitled "Targets and location of the 74 Principal Incidents":

Primary Target:
President: 25
Other Secret Service protectees: 14
Members of Congress: 5
Federal Judges: 4
State and city officials: 2
Other national figures: 7
Business executives: 3
Movie, sports, and media celebrities: 14

Writers about assassination have more often made assumptions [emphasis included in Secret Service report] about motives than they have explored the actual motives of assassins and near-assassins.

Students of assassination in the U.S. have generally seen assassins and attackers of political leaders either as possessing "political" motives or as being "deranged." This is a narrow and inaccurate view of assassination. Attackers and near-lethal approachers of public officials rarely had "political" motives. Only one subject who acted alone (Sirhan Sirhan) might be seen to have a primary politcal motive or have primary interest in changing particular government policies. (And even in Sirhan Sirhan's case, there is considerable evidence to suggest that his primary interest in assassinating Senator Robert F. Kennedy was to achieve notoriety.)

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Rep. Giffords can hold simple conversations now, and can say a few words on the phone! She's up walking around (with a walker, I think). Wow!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/us/14giffords.html

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Reagan's attempted assassination was motivated by a twisted viewpoint by the shooter who wanted to impress Jodie Foster.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Whatever Loughner's politics were, he seems to have done what he did because he hated Rep. Giffords. Not so much because he wanted to be famous, if that motivated him at all.

Bogney · Senior Member

John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln for a political reason. I thought that MLK's assasin targeted him for his views, as did Ghandi's. We don't really know about the motivations of JFK's killer. McKinley's assassin was an anarchist who was politically motivated, but the official story was that he was simply a madmen because the alternative was more frightening.

I'll give you this one, Squeaky Frome, and I can't remember the story about the attempt on Teddy Roosevelt, but what are the other non politically motivated political assassinations that you are referring to?

winchester · Guru

According to a Secret Service study…

Politics is almost never the motivation for assassination attempts against politicians in the U.S.

Being famous is the motivation. The quickest, surest way to be famous is to kill somebody else who is famous.

Only after making the decision to become famous through murder do would-be assassins fabricate a rationalization for their actions. “Assassins are basically murderers in search of a cause.”

Assassins choose politicians rather than, say movie stars, as their targets because politicians offer a ready-made cause.

What emerges from the study is that rather than being politically motivated, many of the assassins and would-be assassins simply felt invisible. In the year before their attacks, most struggled with acute reversals and disappointment in their lives, which, the paper argues, was the true motive. They didn't want to see themselves as nonentities.

"They experienced failure after failure after failure, and decided that rather than being a 'nobody,' they wanted to be a 'somebody,' " Fein says.
People make decisions to act, and then from that, construct for themselves and potentially for others a narrative about why that is OK, or what the rationale would be, or how this could be justified," Borum says. "It's sort of a reverse pattern from what we would typically think."
They chose political targets, then, because political targets were a sure way to transform this situation: They would be known.

"If the objective is notoriety or fame, that's the most efficient instrumental mechanism by which to achieve that.

And one thing Borum and Fein say about choosing a political figure — as opposed to choosing a show-business celebrity — is that the would-be assassins are able to associate themselves with a broader political movement or goal. That allows them to see themselves as not such a bad person. In this way, Borum says, assassins are basically murderers in search of a cause.

There is virtually never any motivational linkage between politics and assassination attempts on politicians in the U.S. The motivations of would-be assassins are completely inside their own heads, and have little, if any, connection with the outside world.

Unless and until definitive proof of political motivation for a specific assassination attempt is found after the fact, it is best not to suggest otherwise, because to do so denies or ignores the facts and foments a climate of hate.

NPR Article about the study:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132909487/fame-through-assassination-a-secret-service-study?sc=emaf

Secret Service Study:
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf

-- Edited by winchester on Saturday 12th of February 2011 11:21:45 AM

-- Edited by winchester on Saturday 12th of February 2011 11:22:36 AM

-- Edited by winchester on Saturday 12th of February 2011 11:23:33 AM

BigG · Guru

Disturbing;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011702542_2.html?sid=ST2011011702561

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Thanks Cuse.

For your last question, that's tough. Realistically I don't think that there is much we can do to prevent these things from happening.

Some liberals might attack you for that statement. I don't. Just because we wish we had some way of dealing with mass shootings doesn't mean there is a way. The US has by far the most guns per capita of any country in the world. Even if we wished to change that, I don't see how we could turn ourselves into a country with a considerably lower gun ownership rate.

Some may say, "Look at Britain and Canada. Way less handgun ownership, way less gun deaths. We should be like them!" Even if you agree with that, how would we get there?

Bogney · Senior Member

Thank you, Cuse.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

You're right, Cuse, I don't know very much about guns. I know what the press has been reporting, but they often get things wrong. So maybe you can give me, and others, a tutorial on the relevant aspects.

What is the difference between a gun like the one James Bond carried, and what Loughner had? Why is the Glock better, if it is?

What is the difference between the Glock with whatever standard way it had to load bullets and the auxiliary 30-bullet thing Loughner bought and used? What would be the kind of occasion a responsible gun owner would want the 30-bullet thing?

I naively thought the Assault Weapons Ban banned people from buying high-capacity magazines. What did it actually ban?

This is a question for all: Shortly after the Arizona shootings, Rachel Maddow had a program in which she listed off some of the mass shootings in Loughner's lifetime. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, the Amish shooting, Red Lake High school, the church shooting in Wisconsin, all those post office killers, the guy in Silicon Valley who shot up a workplace, and on and on. Rather than thinking of the Arizona shooting as something political, one can list it among these other horrible events. What can we do to prevent them?

I haven't seen any James Bond movies lately, but in the older ones he usually carries a standard pistol. There's no difference between that and the Glock that Loughner used. Heck, in one Bond movie I can remember Bond even uses a Glock. A Glock is just your standard run of the mill handgun; very reliable, and it is a favorite amongst police and also people who carry them for protection.

Most Glocks carry 9 to 15 bullets. Loughner had a 30-round magazine. The larger magazines are useful so that you don't have to reload as often. There's no real need for them outside of the firing range, just like there's no real need for a Porsche or Ferrari outside of a closed track. But some people just like to have them, just like some people like to have exotic and high-speed vehicles.

The Assault-Weapons ban prohibited people from buying new high-capacity magazines; gunmakers could no longer make the magazines or weapons that held more than I think 8 or 9 bullets. However, it didn't outlaw the ownership of such magazines, nor did it outlaw the sale of magazines produced before the law went into effect. Basically all it did was force people to buy used high-capacity magazines, which didn't do much.

For your last question, that's tough. Realistically I don't think that there is much we can do to prevent these things from happening. A crazy person who hasn't been diagnosed with anything will likely still pass the background check. Maybe more vigilance amongst friends and family members of people who seem a little "off" could lead to intervention and diagnosis which could prevent such people from legally buying weapons? Of course, even then they could buy a gun off of the street.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Bogney wrote:

He was stopped when he had to reload. If he had to reload earlier, he may have been stopped earlier. Also, why does anyone need large ammunition magazines?

I am not very familiar with guns, but semi-automatic means greater speed than a revolver, even though you still have to pull the trigger for every shot, doesn't it? If you have fingers trained on videogames, you can spray a lot of bullets in a very short time with a semi-automatic pistol and a large magazine can't you?

There is no real difference in speed between a revolver and a semi-auto handgun. The revolver may fire a bit faster, actually. The only difference is capacity; revolverrs usually carry 6 or 8 rounds while semi-auto guns usually carry 8 to 15.

He had to reload, but if he was carrying two pistols like the Va Tech shooter was, he likely would have caused the same amount of damage, if not more.

As far as the "why do people need large magazines" question goes, who knows? Why do people need fast cars? I'd argue that speeding vehicles are much more of a problem for the United States than large gun magazines are.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

You're right, Cuse, I don't know very much about guns. I know what the press has been reporting, but they often get things wrong. So maybe you can give me, and others, a tutorial on the relevant aspects.

What is the difference between a gun like the one James Bond carried, and what Loughner had? Why is the Glock better, if it is?

What is the difference between the Glock with whatever standard way it had to load bullets and the auxiliary 30-bullet thing Loughner bought and used? What would be the kind of occasion a responsible gun owner would want the 30-bullet thing?

I naively thought the Assault Weapons Ban banned people from buying high-capacity magazines. What did it actually ban?

This is a question for all: Shortly after the Arizona shootings, Rachel Maddow had a program in which she listed off some of the mass shootings in Loughner's lifetime. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, the Amish shooting, Red Lake High school, the church shooting in Wisconsin, all those post office killers, the guy in Silicon Valley who shot up a workplace, and on and on. Rather than thinking of the Arizona shooting as something political, one can list it among these other horrible events. What can we do to prevent them?

Bogney · Senior Member

He was stopped when he had to reload. If he had to reload earlier, he may have been stopped earlier. Also, why does anyone need large ammunition magazines?

I am not very familiar with guns, but semi-automatic means greater speed than a revolver, even though you still have to pull the trigger for every shot, doesn't it? If you have fingers trained on videogames, you can spray a lot of bullets in a very short time with a semi-automatic pistol and a large magazine can't you?

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

On the other hand, who needs to be able to shoot 30 bullets in 45 seconds? You couldn't buy that kind of magazine in 2003, and I don't know why you should be able to buy it now. I'm sorry for all the gun nuts who love to shoot their automatic weapons at, what, targets or tin cans, but those giant magazines (or whatever you call them) are not necessary, and if they had still been illegal, we wouldn't have had 6 deaths and 13 wounded.

You actually could buy the large magazine in 2003, you just couldn't produce them anymore. There were still hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of high-capacity magazines out there that people could buy legally under the 2003 law.

I'm not surprised about the ignorance regarding guns in this shooting though. The gun that Laughner used in this case wasn't a machine gun or even a fully-automatic gun like many people seem to believe; it was a simple, run of the mill handgun. Most people hear the words "semi-auto" and picture a machine gun or something, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Most guns out there now are semi-auto; it just means that whenever you pull the trigger, a single round comes out. That's it.

I don't think banning high-capacity magazines would do much to prevent tragedies like this. The Va Tech shooter was able to kill so many people in a short period of time because he used two guns, not because he had extended mags. A ban on 30-round magazines wouldn't have prevented anything there.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Doesn't seem like too much to ask that if someone is apparently insane and possibly violent, that those who know it could force them to get treatment or evaluation, and that could be kept on record.

That seems like a procedure that could be easily and maliciously perverted to get rid of someone unwanted. AFAIK, Loughner's parents are not mental health professionals, and neither are the people at the community college. I don't want random people being able to force people they don't like to get mental health evaluations. We need to have a better system, but the better system can't be that anyone who feels like it can force anyone else to get a mental health evaluation.

On the other hand, who needs to be able to shoot 30 bullets in 45 seconds? You couldn't buy that kind of magazine in 2003, and I don't know why you should be able to buy it now. I'm sorry for all the gun nuts who love to shoot their automatic weapons at, what, targets or tin cans, but those giant magazines (or whatever you call them) are not necessary, and if they had still been illegal, we wouldn't have had 6 deaths and 13 wounded.

busdriver11 · Guru

"First, the NRA would never go for it and they are more powerful than the president.

Second, mental health evaluations are not foolproof and anyone can develop a mental health problem at any time, even after they have purchased a dozen guns, so a mental health evaluation only provides a false sense of security.

Third, you don't need to be "crazy" to be evil. In the majority of cases, killers are not mentally ill."

Yes, they are powerful. For your second point, I agree also. A close relative of my husband has a house full of guns, and afterwards was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. I hope those guns are not readily available any more, but fear they are. Then again, if what is reported is correct, everyone and their brother knew this guy was obviously crazy. Doesn't seem like too much to ask that if someone is apparently insane and possibly violent, that those who know it could force them to get treatment or evaluation, and that could be kept on record. Who cares if there is any false sense of security if it weeds out most of the crazies getting guns?

It just seems to me that obvious things to prevent obvious straight line conclusions could be rationally considered.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

busdriver11 wrote:

Certainly not. It just seems that we should have a system in place that you need a mental health evaluation to buy a gun. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me, if you are crazy, you don't get a gun.

First, the NRA would never go for it and they are more powerful than the president.

Second, mental health evaluations are not foolproof and anyone can develop a mental health problem at any time, even after they have purchased a dozen guns, so a mental health evaluation only provides a false sense of security.

Third, you don't need to be "crazy" to be evil. In the majority of cases, killers are not mentally ill.

busdriver11 · Guru

"Assuming for the moment that guns ought to be readily available to mentally healthy people without felony convictions, how do we propose to have gun sellers assess someone's mental health? There was no public record that would have certified that Loughner has mental problems. Gun sellers are not psychiatrists and are obviously not qualified to make mental health diagnoses."

Certainly not. It just seems that we should have a system in place that you need a mental health evaluation to buy a gun. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me, if you are crazy, you don't get a gun. Where I work, we are allowed to purchase and bring guns into work. We are required to attend a gun safety program and be evaluated by a mental health professional.

Though I must admit, I wonder how it is that a few certain people managed to slip by....

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

As far as the gun seller, doesn't it seem that there should be some sort of laws in place that you have to check out someone's mental backround before selling them a weapon?

Assuming for the moment that guns ought to be readily available to mentally healthy people without felony convictions, how do we propose to have gun sellers assess someone's mental health? There was no public record that would have certified that Loughner has mental problems. Gun sellers are not psychiatrists and are obviously not qualified to make mental health diagnoses.

busdriver11 · Guru

"He could very well be schizophrenic but why can't everyone hold off until it has been verified? What if he's not? I am sick of the word "crazy" being thrown around so much. A word with absolutely no meaning. Let's give the doctors a minute to diagnose and then go from there."

Well, maybe so. I'm all for waiting to hear the facts. Though having heard several doctors on TV give the 2 minute diagnosis of obvious paranoid schizophrenia based upon his internet recordings and teacher/student comments makes it not much of a leap to that conclusion. Certainly much more so than leaping to the conclusion that some particular political leanings steered him towards that end. Just...after watching and reading what you have so far, if you've been following this case....does it sound like he is not a paranoid schizophrenic, in any way? Is there anything that appears differently? I'm sure his lawyers have the insanity plea all worked out.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

busdriver11 wrote:

Nope, not officially diagnosed, but from all appearances, doesn't the guy sound like a paranoid schizophrenic? From his facebook page, to commentary by physicians, it sounds like this guy was obviously a nutcase, far more than following a political agenda. As far as the gun seller, doesn't it seem that there should be some sort of laws in place that you have to check out someone's mental backround before selling them a weapon? Just seems ridiculous to me.

As far as marijuana causing schizophrenia, I know there are studies out there saying that it exacerbates it, not causes it. That is, it can greatly affect a schizophrenics state of mind, more than one without mental problems.

He could very well be schizophrenic but why can't everyone hold off until it has been verified? What if he's not? I am sick of the word "crazy" being thrown around so much. A word with absolutely no meaning. Let's give the doctors a minute to diagnose and then go from there.

As far as the gun sellers? Maybe if we have to worry so much about who buys a gun, we should not sell them. The brain is still one of the most mysterious organs of the body. It can become diseased and go untreated for years. There will be no background information on many people who are having psychotic symptoms due to untreated illness. As long as we're selling guns at Walmart they will be available to criminals, mentally ill people and others with an evil agenda.

busdriver11 · Guru

"Sorry I'm late to the conversation but anyway - this man has not officially been diagnosed as mentally ill by a health professional. Even if he is, how was the gun seller supposed to know? Do you think he wears an armband that announces "schizophrenic"? You can't blame someone for selling something legal to a customer. Maybe these guns shouldn't be legal.

Also, marijuana does not cause szichophrenia. It actually eases the devastating symptoms that the mentally ill can have. Spend a day with the brain of an ill person, you'll be screaming for legalization."

Nope, not officially diagnosed, but from all appearances, doesn't the guy sound like a paranoid schizophrenic? From his facebook page, to commentary by physicians, it sounds like this guy was obviously a nutcase, far more than following a political agenda. As far as the gun seller, doesn't it seem that there should be some sort of laws in place that you have to check out someone's mental backround before selling them a weapon? Just seems ridiculous to me.

As far as marijuana causing schizophrenia, I know there are studies out there saying that it exacerbates it, not causes it. That is, it can greatly affect a schizophrenics state of mind, more than one without mental problems.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

busdriver11 wrote:

Why aren't people asking questions like---How is it that paranoid schizophrenics can purchase guns? How is it that schizophrenics who appear dangerous (gee, what are the odds the parents didn't know he was a threat) can't be compelled to take treatment of some sort? Or at least not allowed to buy weapons. I actually don't know how it is that people don't have to go through serious security checks to purchase weapons, and how do you purchase a gun with so many rounds anyways? And I'm not anti-gun at all, but why does that kind of weapon need to be available to anyone but the military or police officers anyways? What about the connection to marijuana useage and schizophrenia (sorry you tokers, it's real).

Sorry I'm late to the conversation but anyway - this man has not officially been diagnosed as mentally ill by a health professional. Even if he is, how was the gun seller supposed to know? Do you think he wears an armband that announces "schizophrenic"? You can't blame someone for selling something legal to a customer. Maybe these guns shouldn't be legal.

Also, marijuana does not cause szichophrenia. It actually eases the devastating symptoms that the mentally ill can have. Spend a day with the brain of an ill person, you'll be screaming for legalization.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote:Did I ever say otherwise?/Quote

Not in those exact words, no.

Abyss · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:
Of course not, because that might actually require the use of gestalt reasoning. Hint: Human discourse has never proceeded from an historical vacuum.

Did I ever say otherwise?

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote: I don't care about events 50+ years ago. That's old news./Quote

Of course not, because that might actually require the use of gestalt reasoning. Hint: Human discourse has never proceeded from an historical vacuum.

Abyss · Senior Member

hayden wrote:

Payne "As for sympathy for Jewish people - it's hard to be sympathic to the wealthiest, highest earning, most highly educated group in the US."

I can't believe a human being actually wrote that.

I've been called worse on these forums, no doubt. But it's true. I don't have any sympathy for the elites of our society. I don't care about events 50+ years ago. That's old news.

hayden · Senior Member

Payne "As for sympathy for Jewish people - it's hard to be sympathic to the wealthiest, highest earning, most highly educated group in the US."

I can't believe a human being actually wrote that.

Abyss · Senior Member

DonnaL wrote:

Mr. Payne, I actually thought you were more well-educated than that, and might recognize the significance of the rhetoric used in this editorial. You disappoint me. Maybe you should read fewer IQ studies (what do they call that? compensation?) and more history. But, go ahead, if you can't understand the import of what I'm saying, keep pretending that I'm the one engaged in shameless whining and self-pity here, rather than Rev. Moon's minions.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 03:46:08 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 03:46:53 PM

Sorry, I don't have time for History. The vast majority of what I read is actually technical and I do it to stay on top of my game for my job.

When I do read for fun it's on things that I care about - economics/finance/modern military/human intelligence. Only one of those things is patently offensive to the left (or most people really).

And yes, you do come across as a frothy mouthed liberal. As for sympathy for Jewish people - it's hard to be sympathic to the wealthiest, highest earning, most highly educated group in the US.

-- Edited by Abyss on Friday 14th of January 2011 04:48:16 PM

DonnaL · Senior Member

Mr. Payne, I actually thought you were more well-educated than that, and might recognize the significance of the rhetoric used in this editorial. You disappoint me. Maybe you should read fewer IQ studies (what do they call that? compensation?) and more history. But, go ahead, if you can't understand the import of what I'm saying, keep pretending that I'm the one engaged in shameless whining and self-pity here, rather than Rev. Moon's minions.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 03:46:08 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 03:46:53 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

DonnaL, you are very good at playing the victim. Please continue.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Oh, dear. I hadn't even noticed the part of the editorial that accuses the left of "mudslinging that drowns out reasoned discussion of public-policy alternatives and poisons the well of political debate in America."

I see we've already gone backwards in Jewish history from the 1881-1905 period, to 1347-1349. What's next, crucifixion?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

DonnaL, I thought they were trying to be the Onion.

Pictures from the Memorial (That's a Daily Kos diary, but it's all pictures with neutral captions. I don't think it would be offensive to people of any political belief.)

Abyss · Senior Member

DonnaL wrote:

In the category of "if you Jews think that attempt at playing the victim was offensive, wait until you hear this one," an editorial in the Washington Times now refers to the criticisms of Sarah Palin, including the criticism of her use of the term "blood libel," as "the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/12/blood-libel-against-palin-limbaugh/)

Seriously. A pogrom. I'll think that metaphor is appropriate when a troop of Cossacks rides up to a conservative stetl, spears everyone, and burns the stetl to the ground. With the Czar's approval.

Of course, the Washington Times never was fit to wrap fish in, but this may be a new low..

I thought they were just trying to be humorous by lumping Palin in with "conservative thinkers".

By far the best conservative thinkers have already gone underground due to the 'unspeakables'. When even Nobel Prize winners can't speak their mind you might as well just throw in the towel (Shockley/Watson, etc).

DonnaL · Senior Member

In the category of "if you Jews think that attempt at playing the victim was offensive, wait until you hear this one," an editorial in the Washington Times now refers to the criticisms of Sarah Palin, including the criticism of her use of the term "blood libel," as "the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/12/blood-libel-against-palin-limbaugh/)

Seriously. A pogrom. I'll think that metaphor is appropriate when a troop of Cossacks rides up to a conservative stetl, spears everyone, and burns the stetl to the ground. With the Czar's approval.

Of course, the Washington Times never was fit to wrap fish in, but this may be a new low. No way it wasn't on purpose. The jerks probably think it was funny. And, no doubt, especially hilarious since Rep. Giffords is Jewish.

Maybe next week's editorial will call Palin the victim of a holocaust. It's the logical progression.

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 02:43:22 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Friday 14th of January 2011 02:44:46 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

SamuraiLandshark wrote:

The UC Berkeley Chancellor has also weighed in on this issue:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-berkeley-chancellor-20110114,0,7457352.story?track=rss

His verdict? Yep, you guessed it. Nasty political rhetoric and immigration reform stemming from that hateful state of Arizona made him do it. He also added in the failure to pass the DREAM Act as further reason that the rhetoric has created this toxic atmosphere.

Well, now that the moral arbiters have weighed on the issue we should probably kill all conservative white males (they're evil), open up the borders to any and all immigrants, and give them all education.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I respectfully (really) don't believe that there is any rhetoric that incite a sane, peaceful person to violence and that a person who actually would become violent will do regardless.

But then you're committing yourself to believing that an enormous proportion of Rwandan Hutus were insane or nonpeaceful. And if we believe that, we have to figure that an enormous proportion of people anywhere are vulnerable to being incited to violence.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

1. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable from wherever it comes, even if it's your affinity group. 2. We have a mental health crisis in this country. 3. Neither Sarah Palin nor Sharron Angle bear any responsibility for the shootings. 4. We can expect more of situations if we don't get serious about care for the dangerously mental ill.

I agree with all of these statements.

I worry, though, about a backlash against people who are mentally ill but not dangerous.

Bogney · Senior Member

Zooser: Thank you for the polite response. As often happens when people are generally reasonable and of general goodwill, I do not believe we are gulfs apart in our world views - different but not different species.

My quibble is with "sane." Not everyone who commits violence is "insane," though they may not be thinking clearly in the moment. Most violent crimes are committed by people who know the difference between right and wrong, but lack impulse control. However, if we consider those people "insane," then I believe that there are tons of them.

I'm seeing my son off to his second semester of college. Best wishes,

Bogney

Woodwork · Senior Member

Cardinal,

I know nothing about radio transmissions or braodcasts brainwashing or inciting the happy people of Rwanda to comitt genocide. Sounds extrordinary to me. I do know that this has absolutely nothing to do with political speech in this country or any other advanced democracy. I will however agree that I know nothing about Rwandan political rhetoric.

Bogney,
As for the Jehovah W thing, it seems your example involves an unjust law passed by the Supreme Court, not campaign rhetoric. I'm not sure how we connect this to the current accusations in Arizona.

Again, I point to the FBI's exhaustive investigation of political assassination attempts as reported by NPR and leave it there.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Bogney, I hear what you're saying and agree with a lot of it. I'm a somewhat prissy and formal personality, so I hate disrespectful, inflammatory, vulgar rhetoric wherever it comes from. For example, today I am thoroughly disgusted by the Maine governor who declined a MLK Day invitation from th NAACP and told critics to kiss his butt. Who says something like that? How incredibly crude and vulgar. Plus insensitive.

I do agree with you about violent rhetoric but I respectfully (really) don't believe that there is any rhetoric that incite a sane, peaceful person to violence and that a person who actually would become violent will do regardless. I don't need to be right on this, I don't need you to be wrong, I just look at it a little differently than you do and I do find great value in reading your opinions and experiences.

Bogney · Senior Member

Zooser: Yes, some people are demonizing Palin and that is wrong. It is sick that whackos are threatening her and her family, but then that is also the risk any celebrity takes in becoming famous in a free society (and Bristol seems to be going the celebrity route herself). I don't want Palin or her family harmed. I want public opinion to turn against her brand of incendiary rhetoric and calls for harm, armed insurrection, etc. by anyone - and I definitely don't want her elected. There is a hazy border between criticism and demonization, but there is a difference at the extremes.

Of course, I am dreaming because some event will always rile someone up enough to suggest violence against the opponent. It would be safer for democracy if that were left to truly dangerous and revolutionary times. Public health care may be a bad idea, but it has proposed by various politicians for decades, including some conservative republicans. It should not be resulting in violent rhetoric encouraging people to take back their government by vote, or whatever means necessary. Nor should the federal response to the collapse of the banks be prompting that sort of rhetoric. It was supported by both sides until the democrats won, and then became a republican / teaparty issue. The criticism if fine, and I think both issues have been handled badly, but Oklahoma politicians encouraging a militia, people bringing guns to the Washington mall, etc. is going a bit far.

Moderate voices should argue for pulling back or toning down before people are lynched, beaten up, assisnated, etc., not after. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Politicians seeking political office before a polarized electorate will always push the boundaries to pummel the opponent. They should face some push back from moderate voices so they think a little bit before the next salvo.

I am not a good computer researcher, and I don't know how to link cites. I go primarily by my memory, which is very fallible. However, it would be an interesting exercise to go through the most outrageous statements by politicians, pundits on both sides with respect to implied or direct threats of violence or insurrection. There are probably some cites out there that have that information already. Some college professor has probably already done a paper on political rhetoric from the last election cycle.

busdriver11 · Guru

I don't think most Republicans were happy to have her as a candidate, because if so, she would have won. Almost anyone could have beaten Harry Reid. I'd guess that many people who supported her did so because she was the only other choice against him. And when one doesn't like either candidate, generally people will support the person who represents their party, or their vote. For example, consider the surprising but lukewarm support of Christine, the thieving and inept witch.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Zoosermom, It sounds like you hadn't heard this statement before, or hadn't seen the context. Understand where I'm coming from-- being a lefty pinko Commie liberal, I heard about it at the time
I was working on a litigation involving Ms. Angle during the campaign and so was urged to avoid press reports concerning her. That's why I am not familiar with the statement.

I agree with you that it is deeply disturbing and unacceptable. I'm not sure what more I can say to that. I am more than willing to decry violent rhetoric wherever it's found.

There is, however, quite a bit of violent rhetoric on the left, as well, and has been since the 2000 election controversy. I am every bit as disturbed by that. Are you?

I am also disturbed by linking anyone, regardless of their history, to an act with which they had no relationship. I don't like Ms. Angle's words. She should be held accountable for them. In light of the fact that we can't even be sure that the shooter was coherent enough to know who Ms. Angle was, it is unacceptable to tie this event to her. There is no connection.
More than one entirely unrelated things can be true at once. 1. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable from wherever it comes, even if it's your affinity group. 2. We have a mental health crisis in this country. 3. Neither Sarah Palin nor Sharron Angle bear any responsibility for the shootings. 4. We can expect more of situations if we don't get serious about care for the dangerously mental ill.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Zoosermom, It sounds like you hadn't heard this statement before, or hadn't seen the context. Understand where I'm coming from-- being a lefty pinko Commie liberal, I heard about it at the time. Lefties like me know all about this and similar comments from people like Michelle Bachmann. Now do you understand why I worry about Republicans urging people to violence?

Think about it. This is not some pipsqueak. Sharron Angle almost became a US Senator. She was the nominee of a major political party. And she is going out and advocating, at least according to what I see, shooting her political opponent if she loses. And yet where was the outrage? We didn't see this incident repeated all over the airwaves, AFAIK no Republican, not one, repudiated her or her apparent views. She didn't come along later to explain how she had misspoken and of course she didn't think her supporters should take up arms if she lost.

Or maybe she meant her supporters should take up arms if most Tea Party candidates lost. Or if the Republicans didn't take over the House. Whatever-- it's completely unacceptable for a candidate to foment armed revolution, and yet the Republicans seemed completely happy to have her as their candidate.

zoosermom · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang, I'm scratching my head on that one. I'm not quite sure what Ms. Angle could have meant other than to shoot Senator Reid. Perhaps smarter folks than I will explain it to me.

If that is, in fact, what she intended, it is completely and utterly unacceptable, dangerous, inflammatory and outrageous.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

OK, Woodwork, it seems that you now concede that it is possible for political rhetoric to incite violence, as it did in the very extreme case of Rwanda.

If that is true, we are agreed on one thing. Now we can consider whether the political rhetoric we have here is over the line toward inciting violence.

We agree on another thing as well. Obama's talk of bringing a gun to a knife fight, Palin's remark about reloading, the political trope of political targets: these are commonplace political speech, not worth arguing about.

But what about Second Amendment remedies?? Here is Sharron Angle, candidate for US Senate, being interviewed by a talk show host:

Angle:[The Second Amendment] is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

Angle lost. Harry Reid is still a US Senator, still a "problem". What could Second Amendment remedies mean, other than a call for people who disagree with Reid to shoot him with a gun? What other meaning could the term have?

zoosermom · Senior Member

Demonization is a prerequisite to atrocity because it dehumanizes the victim so there is less of a barrier to violence against them.
Isn't that exactly what is happening to Palin? Even Andrew Sullivan posted today that he is concerned about the possibility of violence to Palin because of all this, and he is the farthest thing from a fan of Sarah Palin.