AZ sheriff blames political rhetoric

Does the Target store need to change it's name? The comparison of Obama's remarks to Palin's gun sights map shows a disregard for context.

Why?

The context is ostensibly about violent rhetoric and how it is presumed to force people to act violently.

At the same time its been pretty clearly reported that this guy is crazy and had a personal (and crazy) grudge against Gifford going back several years.

That makes all of this discussion of violent rhetoric baseless in this case.

Since it is irrelevant to this event, that makes it all purely political discussion and any violent symbols, remarks made, etc become a fair part of the discussion.

That is the real context of the discussion.

I'm not at all criticizing Obama's remarks (or Palin's). I'm too much of a believer in the First Amendment to want to constrain either one.

Why?

The context is ostensibly about violent rhetoric and how it is presumed to force people to act violently.

At the same time its been pretty clearly reported that this guy is crazy and had a personal (and crazy) grudge against Gifford going back several years.

That makes all of this discussion of violent rhetoric baseless in this case.

Since it is irrelevant to this event, that makes it all purely political discussion and any violent symbols, remarks made, etc become a fair part of the discussion.

That is the real context of the discussion.

I'm not at all criticizing Obama's remarks (or Palin's). I'm too much of a believer in the First Amendment to want to constrain either one.

you don't think the context of Palin making firearm analogies is different than when Obama does it? OK whatever.:roll:

you don't think the context of Palin making firearm analogies is different than when Obama doses it? OK whatever.:roll:

I am open minded and intelligent enough to recognize that, politically speaking, there is no difference.

I think this article sums up very well the situation. It comes from the Chicago Tribune.

Politics and vitriol

January 09, 2011
"I have never stooped, my friends, nor will I now stoop, to the kind of vicious falsehoods, mud-slinging, and personal vilification indulged in by my opponent and his Commie pals."
? Cartoon caption, The New Yorker, 1956

On Saturday and Sunday, the shootings in Tucson, Ariz., demanded two urgent responses: Doctors needed to repair the injured. And law officers needed to learn whether the shooter had accomplices.

But as fresh news reports continued to erupt on the Internet, whole armies of commenters responded to a different imperative ? a bipartisan yearning to lay blame and score points. Examples: Some commenters seized on accounts by longtime acquaintances of the suspect that he was a political "liberal"; other commenters blamed conservative talk radio for inciting him to violence.

Maybe we'll someday learn what those commenters pretended to know: that the Tucson assailant had a political motive. As if that discovery would teach us about anything more profound than one man's demons: The now-known story of his disjointed life suggests no more cohesive rationale than deep personal disturbance.

We're dubious about the accusation ? voiced often by TV's chattering class ? that vitriol today plays an unprecedented, or even exceptional, role in the body politic. The notion that ours is an especially nasty era is self-centered: Our history brims with strident and spiteful speech of virtually every persuasion in pamphlets, newspapers, rallies, broadcasts and, of late, the Internet. Every age has extremists: Today's older Americans recall the harsh, even hateful blather of Father Charles Coughlin during the 1930s. His radio rants for ? and later against ? the New Deal captivated more than 30 million fanatical listeners each week.

Most people can handle muscular speech just fine, and Americans will never dilute their discourse to sedate the few who can't. We all tend to see hot-headed expression as the other side's problem.

This is, though, a moment to remind ourselves that living in a free society burdens us with a constant duty to calibrate our political attacks. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was right Sunday in saying on CNN that, during the fall campaigns, a much-circulated conservative appeal, with cross hairs on congressional districts, crossed a line. He might have added that supporters of both candidates in the race for Illinois' other Senate seat debased it into what numerous pundits called the ugliest in the nation.

The point isn't to quash free speech. It's to ceaselessly attempt to balance robustness with civility, passion with restraint.

That mission, by the way, falls to every one of us ? not just to those other people, over there, blinded by their foolish ideology to what's obviously true.

I have to disagree that the kind of rhetoric filled with vitriol may not have some impact on a mentally unstable person. When you have Palin uses hunting lexicons like, "Don't Retreat, RELOAD!", crosshairs; when during the race for congress, Gifford's opponent advertised a campaign event that said "Get on Target for Victory in November. Get Gifford out of Office, Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelley." 😱
You have to take some responsibility for what could possibly occur. The statements may have not been what directly impacted a pulled trigger, but when constantly barraged by these violent statements by people who are supposed to be an example of mental stability, the nuts start to think that this is socially acceptable, much like teens with eating disorders constantly barraged by images of emaciated models.

I have to disagree that the kind of rhetoric filled with vitriol may not have some impact on a mentally unstable person. When you have Palin uses hunting lexicons like, "Don't Retreat, RELOAD!", crosshairs; when during the race for congress, Gifford's opponent advertised a campaign event that said "Get on Target for Victory in November. Get Gifford out of Office, Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelley." 😱
You have to take some responsibility for what could possibly occur. The statements may have not been what directly impacted a pulled trigger, but when constantly barraged by these violent statements by people who are supposed to be an example of mental stability, the nuts start to think that this is socially acceptable, much like teens with eating disorders constantly barraged by images of emaciated models.

Video games, violent films, violent books, the internet, dieting commercials, super model shows, political speech, ...

Which should we ban first in order to protect ourselves from what might happen due to the influence some of these mediums might have on someone emotionally challanged??

Noone is saying we should start banning everything violent, just that those with a microphone/public platform should exercise a modicum of judgment, restraint, and manners.

Vitrol and inflammatory speech have consequences.

And it's not like the benefits of hateful rhetorical (are there any?) outweigh the cons of innocent people being targets of violence. :roll:

I have to disagree that the kind of rhetoric filled with vitriol may not have some impact on a mentally unstable person. When you have Palin uses hunting lexicons like, "Don't Retreat, RELOAD!", crosshairs; when during the race for congress, Gifford's opponent advertised a campaign event that said "Get on Target for Victory in November. Get Gifford out of Office, Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelley." 😱
You have to take some responsibility for what could possibly occur. The statements may have not been what directly impacted a pulled trigger, but when constantly barraged by these violent statements by people who are supposed to be an example of mental stability, the nuts start to think that this is socially acceptable, much like teens with eating disorders constantly barraged by images of emaciated models.

That's what I've been trying to say, and things don't happen in a vacuum. Palin's (and other's) rhetoric fuels other's violent impulses and they in turn make threatening remarks which others overhear, and on and on... This helps create a climate, in which as you said, violent behavior becomes acceptable. I believe that's what the AZ sheriff was getting at. He's in the midst of it. As far as I know, he didn't point fingers at either the left or the right.

Noone is saying we should start banning everything violent, just that those with a microphone/public platform should exercise a modicum of judgment, restraint, and manners.

Vitrol and inflammatory speech have consequences.

And it's not like the benefits of hateful rhetorical (are there any?) outweigh the cons of innocent people being targets of violence. :roll:

The problem is where/how/when you draw the line in a regulatory manner, because nothing less than that is going to eliminate it.

With every election, we say we'd all like it to tone down, but the behavior and ratings of the 'news' organizations don't reflect that belief.

We've seen it escalate a lot with the internet and since the press organizations became so focussed on profit (and survival in the world of the internet.)

Reasoned discourse doesn't increase viewership. Focusing reporting on good things that have happened doesn't raise ratings.

When assassinations (or attempted ones) occurred in the 60's,70's and 80's the primary thrust of the reporting was on what happened. I don't, for example, recall analysis of how Bremer or Hinckley were twisted by political motivations being the lead item of the story moments after it happened.

The internet and the prostitution of the 'news' organizations has changed all of that and the problem of restraint and manners extends well beyond politics. (Violent movies, video games, Paris Hilton w/out underwear, etc..)

As soon as you start legislating that, you've pretty much ended our Constitutional protections on free speech. It may not happen all at once, but it will happen.

Video games, violent films, violent books, the internet, dieting commercials, super model shows, political speech, ...

Which should we ban first in order to protect ourselves from what might happen due to the influence some of these mediums might have on someone emotionally challanged??

I don't see any suggestion from Mango on banning anything. I see her establishing a possible cause-effect relationship beween ideas promoted by the media and some of the more negative aspects of society. The AZ sheriff made this simple observation and he's getting blasted by some, mostly on the right. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Certainly we can call out The former Alaska governor or anyone else in a position of power and influence for their thoughtless and dangerous words and actions. As far as banning media, that's a red herring on your part.

What "regulatory manner"? :idontno:

I just want people to be aware that all the dumb sheet and hatred coming out of their mouths has consequences - and tone it down.

If such statements are NOT socially unacceptable, and are roundly condemned by leaders, people will stop making them.

If such statements are socially acceptable, we will see more shootings, bombings, and beatings.

And quit acting like a call for civility and some common sense is a Bill of Rights issue. Being an arsehole is not specifically listed as a right.

As always, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should say something or that there are no consequences for what you say.

That's what I've been trying to say, and things don't happen in a vacuum. Palin's (and other's) rhetoric fuels other's violent impulses and they in turn make threatening remarks which others overhear, and on and on... This helps create a climate, in which as you said, violent behavior becomes acceptable. I believe that's what the AZ sheriff was getting at. He's in the midst of it. As far as I know, he didn't point fingers at either the left or the right.

Oddly enough, his off-the-cuff analysis definitively linking the crime and its cause to political rhetoric turned out to be...wrong.

The nut (I refuse to give him more name recognition) has hated Gifford since a community meeting in 2007. I don't recall Palin even existing (as a national political figure) in 2007 or the first half of 2008.

Take someone with obvious mental problems, give them a grudge to fixate on for several years as their mental state declines and bad stuff happens.

As far as I can tell from the reporting no one other than media pundits and this learned Sheriff have tied this crime to rhetoric. None of the reporting on what was found in his home, web postings, etc.... points to rhetoric.

Jumping to conclusions is not something I would put on my list of desirable attributes for a law enforcement official. If this position reflects the Sheriff's ability to conduct reasoned and impartial investigation and analysis of a crime I guess its a good thing that the Feds have taken over the case.

Video games, violent films, violent books, the internet, dieting commercials, super model shows, political speech, ...

Which should we ban first in order to protect ourselves from what might happen due to the influence some of these mediums might have on someone emotionally challanged??

I don't recall Snake, a fictional character from Metal Gear-- kind of like Jack Bauer, running for an executive office working for the People of the US or have his own media talk show yet.

Real people, who are in the forefront of the media, have a responsibility to be more careful about using violent language and imagery as the basis of maintaining their status quo or furthering their cause, IMHO.

As far as the other imagery, like dieting, there has been a trend towards changing those highly unattainable ideals of what is socially acceptable.

Exercise your first amendment rights all you want, but take some responsibility when the bullet comes back to bite you in the a$$. What not use sports and teammanship type of language or imagery? why violence against an other? are cross hairs in the sights of a gun normal images people see everyday? Not in my world.

I am amazed that some strive to distance any causality between hate mongering and violent actions, regardless of partisanship. Just because this event appears to be unrelated, it is still a valid topic that should be taken seriously by those in positions of power.

I don't see any suggestion from Mango on banning anything. I see her establishing a possible cause-effect relationship beween ideas promoted by the media and some of the more negative aspects of society. The AZ sheriff made this simple observation and he's getting blasted by some, mostly on the right. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Certainly we can call out The former Alaska governor or anyone else in a position of power and influence for their thoughtless and dangerous words and actions. As far as banning media, that's a red herring on your part.

There is currently no connection between any colorful map on a web site, or the media, or any talk show hosts, or any political party, and this event. You're both simply jumping to convenient conclusions.

I am amazed that some strive to distance any causality between hate mongering and violent actions, regardless of partisanship. Just because this event appears to be unrelated, it is still a valid topic that should be taken seriously by those in positions of power.

So, you are implying that people making unsupported and ultimately false claims of causality adds positively to the discourse? An interesting position to take.

It would seem more appropriate (to me at least) to discuss this topic on its own merit, not as the result of a politician's invalid pronouncements.

It would a lot more interesting to me if those in positions of power could use actual facts in addressing the topic.

I am amazed that some strive to distance any causality between hate mongering and violent actions, regardless of partisanship. Just because this event appears to be unrelated, it is still a valid topic that should be taken seriously by those in positions of power.

Bear in mind you're dealing with a lot of all or nothing black and white thinkers. To them it's either 100% due to hate-mongering or it's not at all due to hate-mongering. There's no possibility of multiple factors. Nope, it's either one thing or the other. Once they find out the shooter is deeply disturbed, then they immediately jump to the conclusion that hate-mongering had nothing to do with it. Of course this invalidates everything the Sheriff had to say. Unfortunately, there are too many all-or-nothing thinkers in positions of power and influence. We don't need any more.

The media was chomping at the bit to blame the right way before all the facts were known. We so desperately need to come together as a Country. What will it take?

The media was chomping at the bit to blame the right way before all the facts were known. We so desperately need to come together as a Country. What will it take?

Fewer martyrs on the right.