Well sure, SP can put crosshairs on maps all she wants. But when one of the targets actually gets hit, people are gonna make a connection.

Targets are pretty commonly used in politics. The Democrats use them, too:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

The attacks and vitriol in politics don't bother me; contrary to popular belief, the extent of the venom is not new. Its simply more readily available, all over the "news" networks as well as the internet. I, too, concur with the above position.

However, what bothers me is the media's focus on the extremes on both ends of the spectrum. I absolutely despise Olbermann, Maddow, Beck, Hannity, etc. I live in Maine, and we have a large number of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who have much more in common with one another politically than with these pundits.

One other thing that bugs me is the seeming unwillingness of people to change their minds in either direction. Once someone has stated his or her opinion, it seems that regardless of new information that may be gained later, that opinion stands. Why? Why has it become unacceptable to change one's mind, politically and otherwise, based on new information that may come available about any given issue?

Piece on Loughner - interview of a friend of his - here:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

Once someone has stated his or her opinion, it seems that regardless of new information that may be gained later, that opinion stands.

This disturbs me as well, although it doesn't surprise me. Many or most people have picked teams, and politics is about their wanting their team to win. I have no team -- it keeps me voting in terms of what's common sense, smart fiscal policy, etc.

You can't fix stupid, and there will always be nutty people running around doing nutty things.
The calls to ban weapons and neuter free speech will come flying fast and furious from the talking heads.

Well sure, SP can put crosshairs on maps all she wants. But when one of the targets actually gets hit, people are gonna make a connection.

And Giffords was also in Daily Kos' crosshairs, too. Too...blue dog for his tastes, you know.

It's not anyone's fault the shooting happened except the shooter, plain and simple. Pointing fingers and placing blame on anyone other than the shooter is pointless, counterproductive, and just plain stupid. What's really unfortunate is that instead of using this tragedy to join together to fight against the person actually responsible, both sides are using this tragedy to push thier own agendas. It's does nothing but push party lines further apart and cause more annamosity.

I am firmly in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" camp. I am also firmly in the "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" camp. I have never wavered on those two stances. And I too would punch out the lights of anyone who would take away my .38 or try to censor my proclamation of "Obama is a fuckin' idiot!".

It's also unfortunate how no one on either side is really talking about how the police were not even the ones responsible for bringing the shooter down. A 61 year old lady was, along with two or three other civilians. Now, if that isn't a good argument to prove that people don't need so much damn government "protection" I don't know what is. (Because I guess the example of civilians bringing down the plane in the Pennsylvania field on 9/11 has lost it's steam these days...) Every time something like this happens, I am reminded of how much the govt underestimates the American people. They want to pass more laws to "protect us" but fail to recognize that we aren't just helpless victims waiting for the govt to swoop in and save us. We are more than capable of taking care of business. But, the govt would much rather we be passive and just allow the police to do thier jobs. Fuck that. If you're pointing a gun in my face, and I see an opportunity to take your ass down, you better believe I am not gonna just sit around and wait for the police. I am gonna take it or at least die trying. I would much rather die fighting for my life and the lives of others than die being a passive victim.

I am in no way religious, but Sabrina just got me to say "Amen".

What I find most disturbing is the sheep like acceptance of violence, as long as the government is doing it.

"Once someone has stated his or her opinion, it seems that regardless of new information that may be gained later, that opinion stands."

Google "wiki" and "confirmation bias".

We all labor against our programming in this regard.

What Sabrina said, and then some.

re: confirmation bias

I think that what we're seeing now goes beyond an unconscious bias, and has become a deliberate campaign to misrepresent what has occurred.

The Sheriff is still blaming the right wing, in increasingly partisan terms. Democratic representatives are issuing statements that are obviously employing talking points. The response from the left is being choreographed.

Well, one of Obama's buddies in the MFM said that he really needs his own Oklahoma City moment so he can reconnect with the American people. The proggs and the MFM (but I repeat myself) are working overtime to give it to him.

It's being reported now that Jared Loughner made multiple death threats, and the Sherriffs told the victims that he was "being managed, and that further charges were not necessary, further, he had a relative that worked for the county and and pressing charges could cause more problems than they could solve."
[url]http://tinyurl.com/6fsddsp[/url]
Looks like the Sherriff is not only indulging in wishful misdirection, but fast and furious CYA.

The sheriff needs to be relieved of duty and of his pension. Then some time in stocks and pillories is in order.

The use of dead bodies as props in the Progressive's political fantasies needs to stop, now.

Ah, that explains why the sheriff keeps going on and on about "right-wing extremist rhetoric". He's trying to deflect attention. Nothing to see here, move along.

Thanx for the map link, Amy. I think there's a diff between crosshairs and plain ol' targets, and SP and crew probably thought so too after the fact, since they took the map off her website. Tasteless choice of graphics, I say.

Oh, and while I'm no fan of SP, I'm not saying she's personally to blame. The crosshairs map is a tacky coincidence, but that kid Jared's definitely wacko.

I have a blistering migraine from all the spewing of venom from both sides. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question: why didn't this young man get help for his mental illness? I am not defending him nor do I think an insanity defense is going to be successful. The school he attended is silent though his class mates complained repeatedly he was a bomb about to go off. Was there no one listening? Were they too busy listening to all the talking heads on TV instead of paying attention. I hold his family and his school administration personel more responsible than the current political atmosphere.

"I have a blistering migraine from all the spewing of venom from both sides. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question: why didn't this young man get help for his mental illness?"

It's starting to look like the answer is: the guy was allowed to skate because his mother had connections. There's more story to be told yet, but it now appears pretty certain that the guy made numerous death threats towards various people in the community; the sheriff's department knew about it and did nothing. It's starting to look like Amy Bishop all over again.

That's DR. AMY BISHOP, ASSHOLE!

WHERE'S MY FUCKING GUN?!

It's not clear whether we're talking about laws or simply a call to voluntary common courtesy.

I thought ALL advocates of manners - such as Amy - understand the need to debate like adults, not like angry children with slightly bigger vocabularies.

As my favorite etiquette maven said in a 1990s NY Times editorial: "You may have a legal right to call your mother an idiot, or somebody else's mother a slut, but you won't if you know what's good for you. Nor could you convince many people that the controversy that such remarks are likely to provoke will lead to advances in knowledge."

More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/20/opinion/dialogue-speech-on-campus-say-the-right-thing-or-else-attack-ideas-not-people.html

And, ever since the early 1960s, psychologists have been trying to teach people that, contrary to the earlier, popular opinion, the cathartic technique does NOT help people to unload their anger safely - rather, it aggravates it, whether the target is the original target or an inanimate substitute.

The solution? Learn to count to ten. Or 100. And people shouldn't jump to conclusions; they must think before they speak. As Ann Landers said (pardon the sentimentality) "Keep your words soft and sweet; you never know when you may have to eat them."

Obviously, you have to be more pointed than that if you want audiences to remember what you say instead of having them fall asleep. However, when it comes to yelling, hasty accusations, profanity and ad hominem attacks, all I can say is, I don't remember hearing of Abraham Lincoln doing any of the above. When have his speeches been out of print?

Slate must be full of kooky writers:

http://www.slate.com/id/2280711/