Must Everything Be Polarized?
A 9-year-old girl was murdered in Arizona Saturday, and others were wounded or murdered, and Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is in the hospital with a bullet wound through her head...and all over Twitter and blogs, people are pointing fingers left or right.
There are, for sure, major assholes and horrible people on both sides. It's just how people are -- left, right, and human. But, it was still pretty disgusting to see so many people turning this tragedy into an opportunity to blame the other team.
My tweets and retweets below from today below:
@HowardKurtzWhy the Gabrielle Giffords blame game is depressing and efforts to tie Sarah Palin to the shooting miss the mark. http://thebea.st/htzzeR@nytjim More on the 9-year-old victim, Christina Taylor Green. http://bit.ly/eFV4oX
@PatDollard He now seems unconnectable to any political ideology. An analysis of his rant leads to the conclusion he was a member of Tweaker Party, only
@allahpundit RT @JonHenke: Shooter ID'd as Jared Loughner. Is this him? http://youtu.be/nHoaZaLbqB4 Sounds like an anarchist
@joshtpm Surgeon at hospital says he's "very optimistic about [giffords] recovery." #giffords http://tpm.ly/gn7ww4
@TheAnchoress It is astounding that Giffords has survived. Awful news about the 9 year old child. Judge Roll has also died.
@amyalkon Darci Slaten, University Medical Center public affairs officer: "She is alive and in surgery right now." 16 mins ago http://bit.ly/fZruTn
@amyalkon The conflicting reports on Gifford here, as of 12:06pst, 3:06 est: http://bit.ly/f7YXvt
@amyalkon Rep. Gabrielle Giffords http://t.co/5tuObZW shot in head, confirmed alive, hospital says. Seriousness of injuries unknown. (ABC News)
@BreakingNews More on Ariz. gunman: At least 12 shot, including Rep. Giffords, Democratic party source tells CNN http://bit.ly/hJ7EWx
Charming.
Patrick at January 9, 2011 12:00 AM
If we go back to your previous post, about the state of Maryland losing $100 million dollars, it's certainly not tragic in the way 9 deaths are, but it certainly unfortunate, and that money could have paid for a lot of services like police or firemen, and conceivably saved just as many lives. So for the sake of argument, let's round it up to Tragedy.
Which leads me to ask, why would you turn that "tragedy" into an opportunity to blame the other team?
clinky at January 9, 2011 1:17 AM
clinky: say what?
Some anarchist goes nuts and starts shooting people. This is not the fault of any political party or any politician - that is all that Amy is saying. The person responsible is the anarchist.
The fact that Maryland raises its tax rates, thereby chasing away the very people it hoped to tax? Blame can be very precisely placed on politicians - because they are the ones who passed the corresponding legislation.
a_random_guy at January 9, 2011 1:53 AM
Just ran across this article about the Tucson shooter. This well-researched article points out that Loughner has shown increasing signs of mental instability over the past few months.
It includes this possible diagnosis: "the rambling, disconnected writings and videos he has left on the Web are consistent with the delusions produced by a psychotic illness like schizophrenia, which develops most often in the teens or 20s".
a_random_guy at January 9, 2011 4:57 AM
But, it was still pretty disgusting to see so many people turning this tragedy into an opportunity to blame the other team.
That's what pundits do. It's just more apparent with violent incidents like this one. But they make similar accusation based on all sorts of human tragedies, without much regard for accuracy.
hug at January 9, 2011 4:59 AM
Accuracy is bad for ratings.
And blame sells.
Robert at January 9, 2011 5:18 AM
Reasonable people would not think that its an entire party's fault for the act of one person. It is a shame though to think that this is what politics has turned to in this country. Death sells but death at the hands of your policital rival sells more. Disgusting!
Kristen at January 9, 2011 6:50 AM
Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia back in 2008, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He added, "That's the Chicago way."
KateC at January 9, 2011 6:53 AM
When you have population increase dilute the perceived worth of the individual, combined with political machines that make noises to frighten people into backing them; when you have a widening distance between the public and their leaders, as shown by statements like, “we have to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it” – the number of these incidents will go up.
The Founders shot their way into American independence, they didn’t talk it out, because talking quit working.
This situation is like dealing with terrorism. To truly stop it, you have to recognize the causes and remove those causes, because when the cause is left standing, the cannon fodder will continue to step right up and volunteer to be violent.
Call this guy crazy if you want. That’s just who shows up first, because they figure they have the least to lose.
Radwaste at January 9, 2011 7:35 AM
Well, I reckon a few thousand personal security jobs were just created...
Eric at January 9, 2011 8:26 AM
"This situation is like dealing with terrorism. To truly stop it, you have to recognize the causes and remove those causes, because when the cause is left standing, the cannon fodder will continue to step right up and volunteer to be violent."
One of those rare times when Radwaste and I are in disagreement. People are naturally violent, and a certain percentage of the human population is naturally crazy and will funnel that craziness into belligerence. Craziness and violence will latch themselves onto a cause, and if that cause goes away, the crazy and belligerent will organize themselves around another cause, even if they have to make one up.
Isabel1130 at January 9, 2011 8:44 AM
I think part of the blaming and finger-pointing stems from our need to find immediate explanations and solutions when something like this happens. Even if it turns out to be some random act by a crazy person, the idea that it could happen anywhere and at any time is frightening. No one wants that kind of unpredictable insanity to be beyond our control. Sadly, there's no guarantee that it won't happen again.
JonnyT at January 9, 2011 8:48 AM
Regarding the targeting, Kate Coe posted this link on somebody's Facebook page:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2011 8:57 AM
So it seems that the guy had been exhibiting highly disturbed and threatening behavior for some time. Which goes back to the old debate, which is so difficult to tackle from a libertarian standpoint: at what point do you invoke state authority to remove a seemingly dangerous person from society? It's a very touchy question. On the one hand, we have to face the fact that some people are just too dangerous to have running around loose, and ideally we'd like to remove them from society before they do something drastic, rather than after. However, the fact is that throughout history, authoritarian governments of all stripes have used "mental instability" as a pretext to imprison political opponents.
In the 19th century, the prevailing attitude was "lock 'em up". We know now that a lot of people that were perfectly okay or only had minor problems got institutionalized. On the other hand, I will allow that perhaps, in the 20th century, the pendulum swung a teensy bit too far in the other direction. But: In this day and age, where government is chock-loaded with authoritarians of all stripes, I really don't want to give them any more power to lock citizens up without the full Constitutional guarantees of due process. So I don't have a good answer.
Cousin Dave at January 9, 2011 9:19 AM
Anyone who thinks this kind of ugly finger pointing in the media is new needs to read "Scandalmonger" by William Safire. This is just as old as our nation itself. It's unfortunate that we can't all grow up, but ugly sells.
What we need to focus on is the fact the suspect was labeled numerous times as mentally unstable, yet was out free walking the streets. I'd hope that this incident would make us all look at the state of the mental health care system in this country - or rather, the LACK of a mental health care system in this country. Like the young man who shot all those innocent people at Virginia Tech, this guy should have been locked up. But oh no...we have to protect HIS civil rights. Uh huh. As long as we keep letting severly mentally ill people walk around free in society, this is going to happen.
UW Girl at January 9, 2011 9:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/01/09/must_everything.html#comment-1818098">comment from UW GirlIt's human nature, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize it and try to be better than that.
Amy Alkon at January 9, 2011 10:11 AM
I think part of the blaming and finger-pointing stems from our need to find immediate explanations and solutions when something like this happens. Even if it turns out to be some random act by a crazy person, the idea that it could happen anywhere and at any time is frightening. No one wants that kind of unpredictable insanity to be beyond our control. Sadly, there's no guarantee that it won't happen again.
Of course, it couldn't possibly be the fact that people like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein *love* to twist tragedies of this sort in order to advance their personal narative. They would *never* try to make political points on the bodies of innocent children and the elderly, or rewrite history or forget that they, themselves have been among the worst offenders in spewing hatefilled garbage that some fucked in the head psycho could be influenced by.
Oh, no.
The same people who are rushing to blame Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh were trying to hide the fact that the Ft Hood shooter was a muslim.
'Nuf said.
Kat at January 9, 2011 10:12 AM
I wouldn't hold Palin responsible for this shooting, but this disingenuous crap from her aide takes the cake.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuull-SHIT!
Patrick at January 9, 2011 10:35 AM
Gabrielle Giffords had an eerily prescient moment during her interview with MSNBC, when she cited the Palin ad as the sort of irresponsible, violent rhetoric that would have "consequences." Her comments about Palin's ad occur around two minutes into the video.
Patrick at January 9, 2011 10:40 AM
Actually those aren't gun sights, they're cross hairs. You're not going to find any type of sight or reticle that looks like the graphic they used. What people are thinking of are cartoon bomb sights. So they should be saying that Sarah Palin wants to bomb those places.
jj at January 9, 2011 10:48 AM
Thank you for this, Amy, it means a lot. By the way, did you know that the little girl who died was born on 2001-09-11? I'm not entirely sure why, but I find that most profound.
Back on the topic, here's what Pat Sajak had to say:
"Why is it too much to ask for a reasonable period following these kinds of mad acts during which time we can sort out the facts, deal with the personal and collective grief and report on the aftermath? It seems to me there's nothing more disrespectful to the victims of such tragedies than to use them as pawns in an effort to make points about various political and social issues. If there is political poison at work, it's being administered by those who pile on with their pre-packaged analyses before we've had any chance to deal with the horror of the situation. The victims, their families (like our George Savage), their friends and all of the rest of us, deserve the chance to grieve before the lectures and recriminations begin. Have these people and no shame?"
Robert W. (Vancouver) at January 9, 2011 11:04 AM
I thin when a group gathered for the purpose of one side's politics is shot up, the automatic and fairly rational assumption is some whacko professing the other side's beliefs is to blame. If a synagogue blows up, we're not going to quickly assume jews did it, are we? As facts emerge, we then update our opinion. That's just human nature.
momof4 at January 9, 2011 11:08 AM
jj, spare us the bullshit. They're gun sights.
Again, Palin is not to be blamed for the actions of an obvious madman who thinks guns are the first solution rather than a last resort to solving problems, but let's not get ridiculous in rushing to her defense. They're gun sights, and despite the hysteria coming from her aide, that's exactly what was intended.
Patrick at January 9, 2011 11:17 AM
No stupid they're not. They're bomb sights.
jj at January 9, 2011 11:19 AM
With all of the crazy libs who want to kill her and molest her daughters, I'm not surprised that she wants to shoot them.
mel at January 9, 2011 11:30 AM
Of course, jj. How could I be so silly as to think they're gun sights? Why, nothing could be further from Sarah Palin's mind...
It's not as if the delicate little snowflower has never seen a gun in her life. And her rhetoric isn't filled with that kind of imagery.
It isn't as if she doesn't advise her supporters, "Don't retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" or that she doesn't "take aim for these races and others."
/sarcasm
They're gun sights, moron. Sarah Palin has a background in hunting and has used that type of imagery in her campaign.
But you've done a very good job of trolling the internet, making sure to deny, deny, deny that guns were in any way intended behind those ads. You're full of shit, but at least Sarah Palin can't fault you for trying. She should pay you a bonus for your efforts.
Patrick at January 9, 2011 11:32 AM
It may not be a literal picture of a gun sight, but it's a standard graphical shorthand for a gun sight. For example, see this poster from the movie "Sniper": link
Although, also, I don't think Sarah Palin is responsible for the shooting. It is, however, an interesting fact, a weird crazy coincidence that she published a poster with a gun sight referring to the victim.
clinky at January 9, 2011 11:38 AM
From Instapundit:
"Another former high school classmate said that Mr. Loughner may have met Representative Giffords, who was shot in the head outside the Safeway supermarket, several years ago.
“As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote.
So: “Quite liberal,” and didn’t like Giffords in 2007, before anyone had heard of Sarah Palin or the Tea Party. But it’s their fault."
Isabel1130 at January 9, 2011 12:09 PM
So, is it also "interesting" and a "weird crazy coincidence" that the Daily Kos just had a diary entry, now deleted, but you can see screen caps here ->[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/is_daily_kos_to_blame_for_giff.html[/url]
stating that lefty liberals used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times?
Stuff it, the oldest trick in the book is to say "Well, you know, I don't really believe such and such, but it is Interesting that..." and repeat it often enough that it becomes "Isn't it interesting that..."
No matter what graphic had been used, someone would now be pointing to Sarah Palin's website and saying "See! See! that's why it happened!" BS, the reason it happened is some sad sack psychotic was not diagnosed, put away and kept where he couldn't harm himself or others. I blame the people who knew him, who knew his sickness and what he was capable of.
*dons flame proof suit*
Kat at January 9, 2011 12:09 PM
Lets say they're gun sights.
SO the fuck WHAT?!
Gun imagery is used throughout the culture for a reason. It doesn't always relate directly to the idea of shooting someone, any more than a cross on the road to mark an accident death means that the person was a Christian.
Robert at January 9, 2011 12:38 PM
The fact is that keeping a crazy person from killing again is impossible.
There are to many ways to kill people, to many crazy people to effectively track and monitor, and the fact is you cannot infringe on the rights of others for the sake of safety.
That way lies tyranny.
You need a verifiable threat to public safety, and very few severely mentally ill people are actually violent.
So a random crazy person shooting shit up might sound scary, and yes, sooner or later it will happen, but the chances of any one location are vanishingly small, they're not actually the real problem.
See, crazy people, delusional people are largely self destructive, they're not good at keeping from getting caught, so most of them have very short active spans of violence before being locked away for good.
The real problem are the violent people who are perfectly sane. Richard Kuklinski, the Iceman serial killer, killed more over his some 30 year spree than all the crazy person spree killings put together in the same span of time. Nobody can actually even be sure of how many he actually killed, because he's forgotten some of his victims.
Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, these were people who were perfectly sane, not prisoners of their delusions.
Evil supported by a desire to do evil, is infinitely worse than the delusional anger that brings about incidents like in Virginia & Arizona.
Robert at January 9, 2011 12:47 PM
Kat, you are correct in that this whole crosshairs umbrage is manufactured outrage. There is no apparent link, so people just make one up, shout it loud and fast, before facts are known. The effect is to link the events in people's minds. Won't you now always think of Palin's crosshairs when you think of the shooting? Effective, isn't it?
But violent imagery as part of political discourse did not begin in January 2009. I remember 2001-2008. Too many of same people claiming to be shocked, shocked now at the rhetoric on the right were equivocating about movies showing Bush getting shot, Gore screaming (literally) during public harangues that Bush betrayed America, etc.
Spartee at January 9, 2011 12:48 PM
Excellent piece by Jack Shafer in Slate:
http://www.slate.com.id/2280616/
"Only the tiniest handful of people - most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds - can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes our politicians no safer."
Martin (Ontario) at January 9, 2011 12:53 PM
Oops
http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/
Martin (Ontario) at January 9, 2011 12:56 PM
Robert:
Precisely the attitude SarahPAC should have. But instead, they have their damage control aides tweeting all night of how they never a godzillion years envisioned gunsights.
Of course they did.
This disingenuous crap they're spouting doesn't serve them. It only adds fuel to the idiotic notion that the shooter saw Palin's ad and was inspired to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. They would do better for themselves if they conceded that their imagery was gun sights, and follow it with the commonsense observation that the images were viewed by millions of people who didn't suddenly feel the urge to go out and blow people away.
But instead, Palin's aides are doing about the dumbest thing imaginable: they're trying to tell us that not only were they not intending gun sights (a dubious claim by itself), but not a single person on their staff looked at the images and thought "gun sights."
How stupid are these people? Who the hell is going to buy this crap?
Patrick at January 9, 2011 1:16 PM
Barack Obama told a crowd of supporters in Philadelphia back in 2008, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He added, "That's the Chicago way."
Posted by: KateC at January 9, 2011 6:53 AM
Which is even more amusing since its a quote from the movie "The Untouchables" with Costner and Connery. Its a line Connery said in the movie, a movie about Eliot Ness going after Capone in the 30s.
Anyway, at this point I fully expect to hear more calls for less "violent" political rhetoric, mostly focused at the eeeevil gun rights/tea party/GOP folks. Along with new gun bans/parts bans whatever.
Honestly, given what is happening in this country on so many fronts, I have hard time conjuring up much feeling for the dead judge or the congresswoman. They treat me and the average citizen like sheep while doing little to stop the corrupt cops or criminals from harming citizens. I only feel for those dead and wounded fellow citizens, especially the little girl who died and all the families at the hands of a clear nutjob.
The actions of a insane man however do not change my mind that violence is often needed to defend one's rights. The government sure won't do it for you, they'll just enslave you.
Sio at January 9, 2011 2:32 PM
"People are naturally violent, and a certain percentage of the human population is naturally crazy and will funnel that craziness into belligerence."
Isabel, you have no cause to disagree with me in any way, because your position is not exclusive of mine, here.
Society channels its aggression into gaming. Do you really think thousands of NASCAR fans appear at the races to appreciate the automobile, or that people who merely play with a ball are idolized as "heroes" because, wow, they are?
Mental stability is not binary. For every nut who hurts somebody, there are dozens who can think about it. So long as we can channel the efforts of such people, to give those who feel they don't have a voice and have nothing to lose something to say and an ear to hear it, we drop the number of people who go on to more drastic means.
There's a well-established principle here - I'm not just making this up.
Consider the slogan. A sound bite, designed to engage the emotions, it has the effect of making the person repeating it think they are actually doing something other than making a noise with their mouth. In safety engineering, it is the operator's natural enemy, because repeating a slogan does not make you think on the job, and thus be safer.
If I can get you to repeat "death panel", or "health care", I have a good chance of making you think about the package I've prepared for you and support it, because you won't get past the slogan; having invested emotionally, you'll defend it, first by attacking somebody else's position, not by examining your side.
The principle of defusing unrest by encouraging speech is well known, and it can best be seen in American history by how eagerly the 1st Amendment is defended - while all the others are surrendered instantly, for convenience!
Radwaste at January 9, 2011 2:43 PM
I just got back from the gun range. It's what people who don't know guns think of as a sight. Whether Palin was playing to that (probably) I don't know, she certainly knows guns and sights. And much as I dislike it, I have to agree with Patrick ONLY that her aides are handling this idiodically.
"BS, the reason it happened is some sad sack psychotic was not diagnosed, put away and kept where he couldn't harm himself or others. I blame the people who knew him, who knew his sickness and what he was capable of. "
This 1000 times.
momof4 at January 9, 2011 4:04 PM
@Martin
"Only the tiniest handful of people - most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds - can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts.
Bullshit.
Most mentally ill people are NOT on medication or in prison.
The National Coalition for the Homeless estimates that around 25% of the homeless population suffers from "severe and persistant mental illness". The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that at any given time, about 5% of the US adult population can be classified as suffering from "serious mental illness".
As a nurse who works in a major mentropolitan area, I can tell you that there are a lot of what my grandfather called 'batshit' crazy people out there walking around right now. Now, most of them are harmless to themselves and others. But I've seen people brought into the ER (usually in police custody) who are violent and insane, and who wouldn't hesitate to hurt or kill anyone. These people are put on 90 holds and given meds. But after 90 days, they are by law released. And guess what? They stop taking their meds and end up right back in crazyville. And these are the ones that get caught and/or diagnosed.
Until our country recognizes that an individual's civil rights should not always trump public safety, we're going to be faced with more sad days like this.
UW Girl at January 9, 2011 4:29 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out, because right now CNN is going full bore with the narrative that this incident is due to the climate of HATE in America. Sarah Palin is somehow involved.
hug at January 9, 2011 6:08 PM
which is so difficult to tackle from a libertarian standpoint: at what point do you invoke state authority to remove a seemingly dangerous person from society?
After they prov to be a danger to scociety, because if we give the government to lock up people for what they might do, then any of us could be locked up at any time
I'd hope that this incident would make us all look at the state of the mental health care system in this country - or rather, the LACK of a mental health care system in this country.
Yea right, $20 says there are new restrictions on purchasing weapons within a month
lujlp at January 9, 2011 6:38 PM
Where is Obama on this?
Why isn't he calling for calm and asking for the finger pointers to wait for the facts to come to light.
The reason I ask is because in November 2009, when a Domestic Muslim Terrorist shot up Ft. Hood killing 12 and wounding 31, Obama less than 24hrs later said "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
Where is he?
This man his clearly not a leader.
AJP at January 9, 2011 6:38 PM
"But oh no...we have to protect HIS civil rights. Uh huh. As long as we keep letting severly mentally ill people walk around free in society, this is going to happen."
Read Theodore Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass" sometime. He makes some really good points specifically on this. His own experience in the UK NHS showed how the pendulum did, in fact, get swung too far the other day (as a previous poster mentioned too). He describes many experiences with people who clearly need help but can't be held beyond an initial checkup if/when they show they're a danger to others or themselves. He talks about how there's a revolving door where a person will be brought in, put on meds, after a few days seem a lot "better" and have to be released because they can't be held any longer or forced to stay on the drugs. They then immediately stop taking the meds and revert right back to the same dangerous state again.
Miguelitosd at January 9, 2011 7:38 PM
How depressing. What a traumatic event for the parents of the girl. Another person killed was recently engaged to be married, apparently. Sad stuff.
Jason S. at January 9, 2011 7:41 PM
"I think part of the blaming and finger-pointing stems from our need to find immediate explanations and solutions when something like this happens."
"Of course, it couldn't possibly be the fact that people like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein *love* to twist tragedies of this sort in order to advance their personal narative....Oh, no.
The same people who are rushing to blame Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh were trying to hide the fact that the Ft Hood shooter was a muslim.
'Nuf said."
That's certainly a consideration as well. Which is why I said "PART OF the blaming and finger-pointing...". I don't want to seem so arrogant as to suggest that I and I alone have the sole answer as to why people react the way they do in a crisis. One opinion, no matter who it belongs to doesn't add up to "'nuf said" to cover the possibilities of human nature.
JonnyT at January 9, 2011 8:29 PM
Even if you remove the violent and unstable from the streets, they'll be out again. It's expensive to institutionalize someone. When things go bad, I can promise you the state isn't responsible.
It's not just the UK.
MarkD at January 10, 2011 8:57 AM
What this is starting to look like is another Amy Bishop situation. Loughner had previously committed other felonies and was never charged thanks to a politically connected relative. People should not get special exemption from the law based on what their political connections are. I think that's something that conservatives and liberals can agree on.
Cousin Dave at January 10, 2011 1:51 PM
Leave a comment