The Arizona shooter was a pot-smoking anti-religious loner (according to NPR), so he definitely was not on the Sarah Palin / Glenn Beck / Tea Party side of the political fence. Fred, I've enjoyed most of your work since the Windows Magazine days, but you went completely off the deep end today jumping to conclusions.
Tony C. Maybe he wasn't but it comes as no surprise that Sarah Palin's Cross-hairs web site came down really fast. Suddenly her rhetoric doesn't look so innocuous anymore, even to her.
Would you rather she respond sensitively to an awful situation, as she did first by her public statements of sympathy and condolence and then by removing the graphic that IN THIS NEW SITUATION could be perceived as inappropriate, or arrogantly defend something that, in truth, did not really need to be defended?
Crosshairs, reload, second amendment remedy, etc etc etc: Talk like that sets loose the crazies. You can't now sit back and say "but we didn't mean to actually *shoot* anyone."
The "NEW SITUATION" was the attempted assassination of Gifford and six murders by Loughner on Saturday.
I never said gun violence was new; Europeans brought that to this continent several hundred years ago.
The Right Fringe does not have a monopoly on violence; remember the Weather Underground, the Sterling Hall Bombing (1970), etc.?
"In the cross hairs" and similar hunting/war idioms have been in use by all sides of the political spectrum for decades, by politicians and the media. The Democrats themselves had bulls eyes on a US map showing "targeted" states for the 2004 Presidential Election (DLC.org); and the DCCC even put bulls eyes showing Targeted Republicans for the 2010 Elections (DCCC.org), roll over the bulls eye and up pops information about the "targeted" individual. These were no more or less sinister, and no more or less incendiary, than Palin's graphic.
"Tea Party Express: Shooting blame is 'outrageous'" (http://tinyurl.com/6bsdwzk)
My argument is more like this one:
"Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol The Arizona sheriff investigating the Tucson shooting that left US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded had harsh words today for those engaging in political rhetoric, calling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh 'irresponsible' ..." (http://tinyurl.com/62pkgut)
It's ironic that I side with a private-gun-owning, conservative law enforcement officer... and you don't.
Forgive me for thinking someone who has reported on the computer industry for so long would be swayed by rational arguments.
The Arizona sheriff is an elected Democrat, not a "conservative" law enforcement officer. He, by the way, was himself irresponsibly spewing vitriol at conservatives, blaming them for an incident in which we know now they had absolutely no culpability.
Person A and Person B are doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. Would it be OK (or rational) to condemn Person A and ignore (or even support) Person B?
Both ends of the political spectrum are spreading gasoline around and handing out or selling matches (depending on whether they're left or right respectively).
The irony is that you have a post about the New Scientist "Living in Denial" article.
This "both ends of the spectrum" stuff is bunk. You have to go back 50 years to find similar stuff from the left; and yes, it was reprehensible then, just as the right-wing militancy is reprehensible now.
But let's put that aside and try a simple experiment.
If you are correct --- if inflammatory rhetoric and imagery is perfectly fine --- then you'll have no trouble with this, right?
I never said inflammatory rhetoric or imagery is OK.
This "both ends of the spectrum" stuff is not bunk. You do not have to go back 50 years to find similar behavior from the left. You don't even have to go back 5 years.
You must not listen to Chris Matthews, Mike Malloy, Alan Hevesi, Paul Krugman, Ed Schulz, Craig Kilborn, etc.
Just do a Google image search for "kill bush".
For that matter, even your own link shows that the left engages in the same type of imagery, even since the tragedy Saturday.
By the way, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal/progressive.
I'm a libertarian who thinks recreational use of marijuana (at least) should be legal, thinks the government has no business interfering with consensual adult sexual behavior regardless of orientation, thinks the government should protect citizens from corporations, and has several other points of agreement with the left.
I'm also a libertarian who thinks the power of government must be limited, thinks government has no business protecting individuals from themselves (as in a "nanny state"), thinks individuals are responsible for their own choices, and has several other points of agreement with the right.
The Arizona shooter was a pot-smoking anti-religious loner (according to NPR), so he definitely was not on the Sarah Palin / Glenn Beck / Tea Party side of the political fence. Fred, I've enjoyed most of your work since the Windows Magazine days, but you went completely off the deep end today jumping to conclusions.
ReplyDeleteTony C. Maybe he wasn't but it comes as no surprise that Sarah Palin's Cross-hairs web site came down really fast. Suddenly her rhetoric doesn't look so innocuous anymore, even to her.
ReplyDeleteWould you rather she respond sensitively to an awful situation, as she did first by her public statements of sympathy and condolence and then by removing the graphic that IN THIS NEW SITUATION could be perceived as inappropriate, or arrogantly defend something that, in truth, did not really need to be defended?
ReplyDeleteNew situation? You think gun violence in America is a new thing? You think right-wing "second amendment remedy" speech is harmless?
ReplyDeleteDream on.
PS:
ReplyDeleteProfile of Jared Loughner: ‘I can't trust the current government’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Crosshairs, reload, second amendment remedy, etc etc etc: Talk like that sets loose the crazies. You can't now sit back and say "but we didn't mean to actually *shoot* anyone."
Too late.
The "NEW SITUATION" was the attempted assassination of Gifford and six murders by Loughner on Saturday.
ReplyDeleteI never said gun violence was new; Europeans brought that to this continent several hundred years ago.
The Right Fringe does not have a monopoly on violence; remember the Weather Underground, the Sterling Hall Bombing (1970), etc.?
"In the cross hairs" and similar hunting/war idioms have been in use by all sides of the political spectrum for decades, by politicians and the media. The Democrats themselves had bulls eyes on a US map showing "targeted" states for the 2004 Presidential Election (DLC.org); and the DCCC even put bulls eyes showing Targeted Republicans for the 2010 Elections (DCCC.org), roll over the bulls eye and up pops information about the "targeted" individual. These were no more or less sinister, and no more or less incendiary, than Palin's graphic.
I applaud your efforts at rationalization.
ReplyDeleteIt's sort of like this headline:
"Tea Party Express: Shooting blame is 'outrageous'" (http://tinyurl.com/6bsdwzk)
My argument is more like this one:
"Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol
The Arizona sheriff investigating the Tucson shooting that left US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded had harsh words today for those engaging in political rhetoric, calling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh 'irresponsible' ..."
(http://tinyurl.com/62pkgut)
It's ironic that I side with a private-gun-owning, conservative law enforcement officer... and you don't.
Forgive me for thinking someone who has reported on the computer industry for so long would be swayed by rational arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona sheriff is an elected Democrat, not a "conservative" law enforcement officer. He, by the way, was himself irresponsibly spewing vitriol at conservatives, blaming them for an incident in which we know now they had absolutely no culpability.
Please excuse my typing error: the last sentence should read "...in which we now know they had..."
ReplyDeleteYes, of course.
ReplyDelete"We spread gasoline around and urged everyone to stock up on matches. But we have nothing to do with the ensuing fire."
Person A and Person B are doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. Would it be OK (or rational) to condemn Person A and ignore (or even support) Person B?
ReplyDeleteBoth ends of the political spectrum are spreading gasoline around and handing out or selling matches (depending on whether they're left or right respectively).
The irony is that you have a post about the New Scientist "Living in Denial" article.
This "both ends of the spectrum" stuff is bunk. You have to go back 50 years to find similar stuff from the left; and yes, it was reprehensible then, just as the right-wing militancy is reprehensible now.
ReplyDeleteBut let's put that aside and try a simple experiment.
If you are correct --- if inflammatory rhetoric and imagery is perfectly fine --- then you'll have no trouble with this, right?
http://sv.tumblr.com/post/2692793054/ryking-calm-down-its-just-a-surveyors
But if that bothers you --- and it should --- then perhaps you can see why it's wrong when conservative campaign ads do essentially the same thing.
It's just plain wrong.
I never said inflammatory rhetoric or imagery is OK.
ReplyDeleteThis "both ends of the spectrum" stuff is not bunk. You do not have to go back 50 years to find similar behavior from the left. You don't even have to go back 5 years.
You must not listen to Chris Matthews, Mike Malloy, Alan Hevesi, Paul Krugman, Ed Schulz, Craig Kilborn, etc.
Just do a Google image search for "kill bush".
For that matter, even your own link shows that the left engages in the same type of imagery, even since the tragedy Saturday.
By the way, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal/progressive.
ReplyDeleteI'm a libertarian who thinks recreational use of marijuana (at least) should be legal, thinks the government has no business interfering with consensual adult sexual behavior regardless of orientation, thinks the government should protect citizens from corporations, and has several other points of agreement with the left.
I'm also a libertarian who thinks the power of government must be limited, thinks government has no business protecting individuals from themselves (as in a "nanny state"), thinks individuals are responsible for their own choices, and has several other points of agreement with the right.
And, I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh.