Political & Elections

Ha, I knew you'd have to be involved if there was "political theatre of the absurd", Bogney. No offense intended. You just seem to enjoy yourself quite a bit when it happens. Almost as if....you're looking for it

I just skimmed over this thread, and saw the references to John Boehners tan (by the way, his mother was dark skinned, and he has always been dark skinned, even as a child....so I don't think it's as glamorous as spray on tan), and Sarah Palin (God, can't anyone stop talking about that woman). Then I realized this conversation has grown completely inane, so therefore I must just say....in reference to Bogney's last post?

Meow?

I suspect that you might be reasonably bright, but you continually opt
for sarcasm over substance and deal with things obliquely, so it's hard
to tell and I'm tired of trying.
Color me crushed.

I fear it was my summary of your arguments of the last few days that brought this on but... face it -- the only thing I could have honestly added would have been a nod to the "Palin didn't cause it"/ "Palin and her ilk contributed to it" dichotomy you seem to be struggling with.

Btw: while it's probably true that the beauty of insinuations is that you never have to apologize for them, they do tend to kind of go off in your hand if you keep peddling them to a steady drumbeat of non-supportive facts and I have to ask you: how smart do you think that looks?

^perhaps that FOX is better at investigated journalism?

For the record, the original article connecting Loughner with the American Renaissance group came from Fox News (of all places).  Huffington Post picked it up.

I suspect that you might be reasonably bright, but you continually opt for sarcasm over substance and deal with things obliquely, so it's hard to tell and I'm tired of trying.

-- Edited by Bogney on Tuesday 11th of January 2011 09:38:18 PM

You have steadfastly refused to respond to my point about fighting words, leading to anger, leading to violence - a very basic and simple point. 
If I've steadfastly refused to do anything, it was to concentrate too hard on any one of your points - they seem to boil down to: bad things might happen unless somebody only disagrees in a yet to be determined way.

I can't tell if you deny that is true.  If you don't, I can't tell why you believe it is irrelevant to raise in response to a horrific act of violence as an effort to deter future violence.
Given the known circumstances of the act of violence, it's more along the lines of pathetic, both politically and morally but I've enjoyed watching, as I've said before.

On the other hand, not being a politician, I don't make up my mind based on what a poll says.  Polls quantify opinion, but say nothing about the quality of an opinion.  The majority is very often egregriously wrong in interpreting social and historical events, so a poll proves merely the popularity of an opinon, not the merit.  If you require safety in numbers for your opinions expressed anonymously online, that would be sad.
You evidently believe what you're espousing, but I'm afraid all those other guys are simply positioning a campaign issue for '12.  Not that I really want to, but I might have to vote for Palin in '12, just so I can beg for leniency in a case or two.  Given what she's been put through by the enlightened side of the aisle, she might give a little creedence to an insanity or incompetence defence.

I don't believe that political rhetoric caused this shooting either, so I guess I agree with the polls.  If they asked whether I believe that political rhetoric can cause an assasination attempt, I would answer "yes" given the history of political assasination in this country.  The polls have not addressed my issue and neither have you.   I would like to see the poll results to the question, "do you believe that it is possible that political rhetoric played a role in the shooting?"  I suspect many more people would say that it is possible because many things are possible and much is unknown about the shooting.  I would also like to see a poll with the same question already asked giving the option of "maybe" rather than just "yes" or "no." 

On the other hand, not being a politician, I don't make up my mind based on what a poll says.  Polls quantify opinion, but say nothing about the quality of an opinion.  The majority is very often egregriously wrong in interpreting social and historical events, so a poll proves merely the popularity of an opinon, not the merit.  If you require safety in numbers for your opinions expressed anonymously online, that would be sad.

You have steadfastly refused to respond to my point about fighting words leading to anger, leading to violence - a very basic and simple point.  I can't tell if you deny that is true.  If you don't, I can't tell why you believe it is irrelevant to raise in response to a horrific act of violence as an effort to deter future violence.  The poor woman's office was vandalized before she was shot.  Was that by insane persons too, or teapartiers, or insane teapartiers? 

It will be interesting to see how Palin responds.  How long will she remain silent, when will her next incendiary comment implying violence against the opposition come, and how will the public respond to that.  If she actually refrains from such bombastic rhetoric in the future, which I tend to doubt she is capable of, then the point will have been made.  If she she comes out guns blazing, she may put herself in a difficult position.   I suspect that this will cause slightly more circumspection for a while at least, which is a positive.

-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 12:11:00 PM

Cat:  But we do know from common experience that fighting words cause anger, and anger causes violence in those less refined than you and I.  That is why fighting words in certain situations can indeed cause violence.  

What constitutes a fighting depends on the individual and the context.  For a crazy person, I suppose any sound can be provocation for a fight depending on their brand of craziness.  Nonetheless, fighting words are called that because, well, they provoke fights.

Politicians using fighting words towards other nations is often a prelude to war, or at least some sort of military action against that nation.  Politicians using fighting words towards each other has resulted in fights on the floor of congress (the southern congressman's caning of the abolitionist from Maine comes to mind just before the Civil War comes to mind).  There has been a marked increase in incivility among congressmen due to the vigorous opposition to Obama  ("he lies" comes to mind and I believe there have been other insults / threats on the congressional floor that are unusual in their intensity).  

Questioning someone's patriotism is usually a good way to get them beaten up.  On CC, a marine wanted to have his buddies beat me up because he questioned my patriotism.  Palin and Fox question the patriotism of the left all the time - they aren't real redblooded  Americans but effete elites in ivory towers in blue states.

The targeting of the Arizona congresswoman through red hot political rhetoric led to the vandalism of her office (on more than one occasion?) before she was shot.  She asked for it to be toned down because of her fear over violence.

However, to you the connection between overheated political rhetoric and violence is as close as the connection of Boehner's tan and political violence.  Hmmm.  I respectfully disagree based on common expense, common experience, and history. 

In the 1940-s, a supreme court decision questioning the patriotism of Jehova's witnesses for refusling to say the Pledge of Allegiance for religious reasons led to the killing of many Jehova's witnesses in lynchings by the American public in full patriotic fervor .  In Nebraska, a Jehova's witness was castrated after that decision officially quesitoning their patriotism.  That was just from a Supreme Court decision in the '40s, before mass media became so mass.  I doubt any of the Justices lwere as telegenic as Palin or had her charisma.

Why do I pick on Palin?  Because she is the master of media manipulation of the more extreme elements of her party - though I am no longer sure what party she belongs to, Teaparty or Republican party.  That, looks, and a good delivery are all she has.  She has no substance.  If she were an obscure governor of Alaska, I wouldn't care so much, but John McCain had the incredibly poor judgment to make her into a national figure, she is McCainstein's monster.  Her mouth has been rampaging the country out of control, though she is strangely silent now. 

Nobody on the right seems to make any effort to understand my point.  This is a good opportunity to discuss and condemn violent rhetoric by politicians that can lead to violence, a common sense proposiiton.  Vigorous debate fine, but going for the old "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" and so forth goes too far, which ever side resorts to it.  The only reason it is not a good time is that it might hurt the reputation of Fox and Palin, though surely not their ratings or their pocket books, so the right is mightily offended by it.  Besides, it is so much more fun to bloviate indignantly about the opposition.

Let me agree again:  Palin did not pull the trigger, and probably did not influence this particular nut to pull the trigger.  However, I would not be surprised if the inflammed political climate in Arizona over immigration led this guy to target her, because he clearly did target her - it was not a random shooting.  The exact cause remains a mystery and it could have happened if everyone was playing nice with each other. 

Nonetheless, reducing the verbal hostilities cannot help but improve civility and potentially reduce real hostilities.  Will that happen?  Only for a decent interval and then verbal hostilities will resume in order to get out the vote for the next election.  Oh well.

No, political gamesmanship was the reason for Palin's speech, not the reason she should retract it, apologize, pledge to avoid it, or whatever.  Calling the criticism of it gamesmanship while not recognizing her speech for what it is, irresponsible incitement for personal political advantage and now for personal profit, is to have blinders on.  There seems to be divide as to the appropriateness of calling Palin on her bluster "at a time like this" that splits along partisan lines.  What a surprise. 

I object to saying that Palin caused this specific incident to happen because there is no proof of that.  I have no problem with saying that Palin, and others like her, have created a political and social climate where something like this has become more likely to happen, and believe that this is a very appropriate time to do so.  If that is "political opportunism," so what?  The "shame game" is a political tactic.

As to the democrats did it too argument, we can talk when the vice-president or president start targeting specific opponents with crosshairs - and I'll agree that Obama's paraphrase of Sean Connery from "The Untouchables" about bringing "a gun" to "the fight" was stupid macho posturing too.  However, he was provoked by people actually bringing guns to his rallies.  Any democrats wearing sidearms openly at republican rallies? 

While we're at it, can we suggest that right wing female candidates refrain from telling their male counterparts to "man up?"  That was a particularly offensive call to male aggression from women trying to emasculate their opponents in a pithy soundbite - Angle and the witch lost anyway but they were clearly following Palin's lead straight into the gutter.  What's next?  "Grow some testacles!"  It very retro to suggest that testerone is required for leadership, and bizarre to then imply that certain women politicians have more of it than their male opponents.

Lastly, you're right, Abyss, I still don't get it.  If you are now saying freedom is worth the cost of some lives, few would disagree - that is why we have a military and fight to defend our freedom.  Now you have broadened it to "weapons" rather than "guns," but you are still emphasizing "freedom."  Which is the focus of your statement?  "Freedom to own guns" is a fairly limited freedom that some might believe is worthy dying, or killing, for, but some might not.  As a general proposition,I don't think that gun ownership should be valued more than a human life - but certainly exceptional scenarios can be imagined where a gun would be more valuable than a particular individual - like the shooter in question.

I don't really get the distinction between the freedom to own guns being more valuable than a life, or lives, and holding guns to be more valuable than people.  You have linked freedom to guns, so the former has no value without the latter.  

No, speech does not have to pass through a moral test, but for responsible people it should.   Speech without regret is nearly impossible if you have a conscience.  You are free to belittle an amputee for his disability - it is not against the law.  Most people would regard such speech as montrous and not utter it themselves even though the First Amendment would allow them to.

As a practical matter, no politician can say anything without the potential for experiencing regret, at least on a political level - though their speech is protected by the First Amendment.  Speech may be legally free, but there are political consequences to it typically as a result of the listening public's moral, political, or religious beliefs.

The fact that an argument can easily be made does not make it a good argument.  The Freedom of Speech argument is a bad one because no one has said that the government should lock Palin up for her speech, fine her, or in any way punish her for it.  Because it is legally permissable does not mean it is in the public interest.  A lot of material many people would consder pornography is protected by the First Amendment, but that does not make pornography a good thing.  Guns more valuable than people? . . . in specific contexts maybe, but as a generaly proposition, that is a little scary.

Cat, speaking of fuzzy, I cannot see how that analogy could apply to Boener's tan unless you are suggesting that it is extraordinarily agitating to his base, which seems silly. However, many of your responses seems to be in a sort of personal Haiku that escapes me. I'll try harder.

Geeps, I agree with your last post, so never let it be said that I oppose everything you write.

Below is an except from an article by an Emory professor on Huff Post. You should read the whole article some day.

Drew Westen Psychologist and neuroscientist; Emory University Professor 1 of 29 Gun Violence and the Lessons of Tucson: Will the Chambers Once Again Be Loaded Against the American People?
Saturday was not the first time Gabby Giffords -- or countless other lawmakers, candidates, and elected officials, including President Obama -- was confronted at a campaign rally or town hall meeting by gun-toting bullies, whose primary goal (at least until this weekend) was intimidation. That bringing a concealed weapon within that proximity to an elected official could be legal in the world's longest-lasting democracy is both surreal and shameful -- and now it threatens that democracy.

-- Edited by Bogney on Monday 10th of January 2011 09:58:39 PM

Sad that one of the few "responsible adults" in U.S. politics just got shot...

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 10th of January 2011 07:02:03 PM

It is very difficult to tell the motives of someone so disturbed, but it is a bad idea to rattle the cages of dangerous animals.  Is that a better analogy, Cat?
Fuzzy enough that it would seem to apply to amost anything anyone did, including Boehner's choice of skin tone.

Yeah, that's non-specific enough to be defensible.

Btw: that sherriff, Dupnik -- is it just me, or is he channeling Nifong?

If logic, reason, and plausibility had ANYTHING to do with politics, former Govenor Palin would be NOTHING.

This is not about "playing to the base". This is about depicting the right as unacceptable to reasonable centrist voters.

The tactic may well backfire.  We will see.

^there is absolutely no evidence that the attack was political..none, zero, zilch. What the left wing rags and pundits are doing is despicable....but predictable

Cat:  insinuation is one of your specialties, so what is your objection?  What does your post actually say, isn't it mostly insinuation?

I know I'm merely a piker and also recognize a pat on the head for what it is, but I still find myself blushing, bogney - I'll try to use "may", "tenous", "I don't know, but I think", etc., enough in the future that I actually deserve the praise.

Objections? None. I admire someone who'll argue causation with no supporting evidence other than his/her imagination. That it's done in the face of non-supporting evidence simply makes it more entertaining.

As for tempting fate, I think it tempts fate to run blindfold across a busy street, so I am not inclined to do it.

The analogy doesn't seem to apply, since auto/pedestrian accidents (blindfolded or not) can be quantified, unlike the imaginary cause/effect the left seems to be promoting. On the other hand, I suppose some speech could cause drivers to steer for the blindfolded and when you provide evidence of it, you can count on me to deplore it.

Celtic, c'mon. In this climate, politicians shouldn't be repeating the old saying that if they bring a knife to the fight we should bring a gun. But what's wrong with advocating arguing with your friends and family? Don't we (the people here) all argue with our friends and family? Aren't the people on this board arguing with people on the other side right now? I have friends and relatives who are Republicans, and we argue as a sport. One friend and I schedule arguments. What's wrong with that?

> Krugman did a masterful job of it today, btw:

Looks like Krugman has completely sold out.  There's more money in being a talking head and it's Internet equivalent than an economist.  It's just easier to get there if you have a Nobel or two.

Cartera wrote:

---

Is Palin helping to create a political climate where violence is more likely?  Yes.

I agree.

---

If I may, what violence?

Certainly, no one here actually thinks that Jared the ****-bag stalker did what he did due to  "Palin helping to create a political climate where violence is more likely."

Or do I assume too much?

 

Is there an argument somewhere there, or mere displeasure?   

Though American style democracy is my personal preference, it may not be the best system for the long term viability and "success" of a society. My preferences and your preferences do not determine what is best and will work in the real world.

The vulnerability of the system to manipulation by charismatic demagogues may well be our downfall. Voters go for the catch phrase and the sound bite and seldom look at important issues.

The system is also vunerable to predation by foreign soverign entities. The Red Chinese have enticed individuals to make decisions which are bad for the long term viability of the US and are proving to be to the long term detriment of their own employers. Where are the "big profits" from outsourcing?

Appeals to the traditional American ideals of "individualism" and "small government" produce election wins but will not defeat the long term planning of soverign entities.

We started with a hugh economic lead but we are "blowing it", day by day, decision by decision.

Bogney wrote:

---

Was Palin the direct cause of the shooting?  No, not that I know of.

Was Palin one of many indirect causes of the shooting?  I have no idea.  There is not enough information and there are too many variables to know.

Is Palin helping to create a political climate where violence is more likely?  Yes.  Violent rhetoric from a charismatic politician is more likely to incite violence from whacko followers, or even from whackos just picking up a generally agitated vibe without much real understandng of content, than non-violent rhetoric from that same politician.  We have many whackos in this country.

Is creating an environment where violence is more likely relevant where we don't know the cause of this particular incident?  Yes, because many times we won't know the cause either because the shooter dies, is crazy, or won't tell the truth.  It is best not to tempt fate even if you don't know whether it will cause a disaster.


Do others besides Palin, including some on left also contribute to a climate where violence is more likely?  Sure, but then Palin has much more exposure and clout then most, and few politicans are as charismatic.  As Spiderman's Uncle said to Spiderman, "those to whom great power is given bare great responsibility" or something along those lines (or was it Batman's butler advising Batman?)

Simple enough?

---

You're reasoning is sure simple.  Shoot someone and blame another person!  Yeah, that's the ticket!  And you want to blame someone else for this horrific shooting other that the psycho-sicko triggerman because?  Does it make you feel better to take the responsibilty of the shooters actions off of him? If I do something stupid tonight I will blame you because reading your post made me go off the deep end.  Sounds reasonable by your logic, correct?

 

-- Edited by CelticClan07 on Sunday 9th of January 2011 10:39:31 PM