Gabrielle Giffords

[RNGmaster]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/08 ... entlisting
Aaaaaaand... inb4 partisan flamewar.

[BulletMagnet]

Having read some of the rantings of the guy who shot her, I'm thinking it's relatively safe to guess that he wasn't motivated by anything resembling a coherent political philosophy of any sort.

Granted, there is plenty to flame about when it comes to the current political climate as a whole, which I think is at least partially responsible for pushing guys like this over the edge, but I'll shut my trap about that, at least for the moment.

[brentsg]

I'm unfollowing a few tech bloggers / tweeters today.

I have absolutely no idea why people that have a specialty like technology, or whatever.. suddenly feel the need to be political experts when some lunatic pulls out a gun.

The guy is a nutcase, period. He's not acting on some coherent and negative political rhetoric.

I don't know the slightest thing about the poor lady that's been shot, but I think in general.. if we keep electing representatives from either party that feed us bullshit during election season, then go on to act in their own self interests then we'll see more violence. People are fed up with both major political parties and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight.

[Zeron]

I heard his favorite books were the Communist manifesto and mein kampf not sure if there is any truth to this but it made me think of this COMMIENAZIS

But yeah the guy is probably just some nutjob

[maxlords]

At 22, chances are he probably barely even UNDERSTANDS politics, much less has a cohesive basis for his actions, especially judging from the website and youtube stuff he was watching.

[BulletMagnet]

I don't know the slightest thing about the poor lady that's been shot, but I think in general.. if we keep electing representatives from either party that feed us bullshit during election season, then go on to act in their own self interests then we'll see more violence. People are fed up with both major political parties and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight.

If you ask me what needs to change is the increasingly mainstream sense that when things don't go the way you'd like them to, reacting with violence is an acceptable option. There are always going to be people unsatisfied with the current situation, justifiably or not - their behavior under such circumstances, not their presence, is the problem.

[brentsg]

I don't know the slightest thing about the poor lady that's been shot, but I think in general.. if we keep electing representatives from either party that feed us bullshit during election season, then go on to act in their own self interests then we'll see more violence. People are fed up with both major political parties and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight.

If you ask me what needs to change is the increasingly mainstream sense that when things don't go the way you'd like them to, reacting with violence is an acceptable option. There are always going to be people unsatisfied with the current situation, justifiably or not - their behavior under such circumstances, not their presence, is the problem.

I don't perceive that there IS an increasingly mainstream sense that when things don't go the way you'd like them to, reacting with violence is an acceptable option. I do perceive that there are growing numbers of people that are beginning to feel unrepresented and powerless. I think in that scenario some on the fringe will do stupid things.

This guy that committed a crime in AZ might have been just as likely to pop the highschool gym coach who "dissed him" or something. Some people are simply nuts. Idiots were shooting at politicians long before Fox News came along.

[mesh control]

This happened a couple blocks away from my great grandma lives and fortunately she was sick in bed and not doing her normal Saturday shopping.

Guy seems to have read a bunch of stuff and got inspired over something he couldn't fully comprehend and acted upon it.

[maxlords]

If you ask me what needs to change is the increasingly mainstream sense that when things don't go the way you'd like them to, reacting with violence is an acceptable option. There are always going to be people unsatisfied with the current situation, justifiably or not - their behavior under such circumstances, not their presence, is the problem.

Um...I know it's a bit off topic but that's kind of how the US was FOUNDED for one....and for another, it's part of the founding fathers' beliefs that if the system IS bad you SHOULD rebel, violently if necessary. Granted, that was over 200 years ago, but at the same time, once a government gets to a certain size, that's literally almost the ONLY way to affect radical change in any reasonable amount of time. Not that I'm saying that this punk-ass was right to do what he did...cause he damned well wasn't, but violent revolution IS one of the ways change is affected, whether you agree with it or not. And that's not ALWAYS a bad thing.

Anyway, please don't derail cause of me.....the kid was an idiot.

[doctorx0079]

Some on the far left are saying "Derp derp, this is what Tea Partiers are like, herp a derp."

[BulletMagnet]

I don't perceive that there IS an increasingly mainstream sense that when things don't go the way you'd like them to, reacting with violence is an acceptable option. I do perceive that there are growing numbers of people that are beginning to feel unrepresented and powerless.

Not to go too far off-topic, but to whit, during the previous administration's tenure I (among many others) felt completely invisible, especially considering that said administration, by any measure, didn't make a fraction of the effort to be "bipartisan" as the current one has put forth - yes, "the fringe did stupid things" back then, but you still did NOT see a slew of prominent (and apocalypse-predicting) media figures praising crowds showing up to town hall meetings with loaded assault rifles (remember, back then simple verbal dissent lent "aid and comfort" to terrorists), or high-profile candidates regularly dusting off imagery usually reserved for mass murderers to describe opponents whose views on tax rates diverge from theirs by a few points. At the very least, you did not see this sort of thing nearly as frequently or intensely as it shows up nowadays, nor did it receive the same amount of acceptance, if not outright support, from top-shelf voices - there used to be consequences, marginalization, rejection for this sort of behavior, and during most of the previous decade, there rightly was. Suddenly, now it's patriotism - if you honestly don't perceive any difference whatsoever over the last few years, I don't know what to tell you.

Um...I know it's a bit off topic but that's kind of how the US was FOUNDED for one....and for another, it's part of the founding fathers' beliefs that if the system IS bad you SHOULD rebel, violently if necessary. Granted, that was over 200 years ago, but at the same time, once a government gets to a certain size, that's literally almost the ONLY way to affect radical change in any reasonable amount of time.

I suppose you're right, but it would appear that a sizable portion of the population has since become unable to understand the difference between "taxation without representation" and "my fellow citizens duly elected somebody I don't particularly like" - once you get to the point where the latter is seen as just cause for a bloody uprising, you don't have a functioning, civilized country to begin with.

[maxlords]

Um...I know it's a bit off topic but that's kind of how the US was FOUNDED for one....and for another, it's part of the founding fathers' beliefs that if the system IS bad you SHOULD rebel, violently if necessary. Granted, that was over 200 years ago, but at the same time, once a government gets to a certain size, that's literally almost the ONLY way to affect radical change in any reasonable amount of time.

I suppose you're right, but it would appear that a sizable portion of the population has since become unable to understand the difference between "taxation without representation" and "my fellow citizens duly elected somebody I don't particularly like" - once you get to the point where the latter is seen as just cause for a bloody uprising, you don't have a functioning, civilized country to begin with.

Fair enough. There IS a rather large distinction between revolution for a REASON and revolution cause you're stupid. The country is rather uncivilized to begin with anymore Personally, I feel that the US is long past due for an actual revolution, but people aren't smart enough to become organized enough to pull it off it seems like.

[brentsg]

but you still did NOT see a slew of prominent (and apocalypse-predicting) media figures praising crowds showing up to town hall meetings with loaded assault rifles

Can you please provide some examples of this? And not comments taken out of context and twisted by the talking heads, I mean real examples.

Also, if you read what I wrote.. I'm mostly concerned about people feeling that they aren't represented by either side. That's the big issue. If the powers that be have essentially locked down the process to two parties, and a sizable number of people feel that neither side is concerned with their interests then I think that's the real danger for fringe violence.

If you felt butthurt because one of the two majority parties represents you, but is currently not in power then I'd say that's working as intended. Bottom line is that people who feel they're being screwed by government, regardless of political process might look to alternative means to affect change. People who feel slighted by the party that's currently got the wheel only need to look toward the next election.

[maxlords]

Well, I'd say the demographic that feels they aren't being at all represented by either of the parties is growing very rapidly in the States and really has been since the 90s.

[brentsg]

I was reading more about the shooter. Apparently at his best, he was a daily pot smoker that wasted away his days with friends that he made uncomfortable. At his worst he was a person that scared those around him, and came across as potentially dangerous.

Apparently he asked his primary victim a semi-nonsesenical question a few years back and felt slighted by her lack of appropriate response. Queue the beginnings of detachment, throw some fuel on the growing government distrust.. Toss in some delusions of being a self-professed philosopher..

And here we are. Gotta wonder where the parents/family was when this guy was spinning out of control. Apparently the people around him, including the officials at his college could see that he needed some professional help.

It's way beyond stupid that anyone is trying to make this about politics.

[BulletMagnet]

Personally, I feel that the US is long past due for an actual revolution, but people aren't smart enough to become organized enough to pull it off it seems like.

To some extent I agree, though I most always recommend the "Ghandi method" of effecting change through non-violent resistance and forcing the establishment to acknowledge the will of the masses - in any event, a good hunk of the "developed" world looks at a lot of what US citizens have to put up with and wonder "why in the world haven't they done anything about this? We moved past this point decades ago." As you say, though, very few of us are truly aware of our place in the world, let alone in any real position to do much about it outside of hoping the national discourse actually starts to enlighten people one of these days.

Can you please provide some examples of this? And not comments taken out of context and twisted by the talking heads, I mean real examples.

You've more or less got me here, as I'm having trouble finding specific praise for the weapon-toters, though there is plenty of encouragement for people who deliberately disrupted said meetings via shout-downs and other rabble-rousing (this memo from a certain PAC being one of the more blatant examples): regardless, those count as encouragement for a lack of civility and acknowledgment of one's opponent's right to be heard (still disturbing, but not inherently violent), so I've got to concede that point.

Also, if you read what I wrote.. I'm mostly concerned about people feeling that they aren't represented by either side. That's the big issue. If the powers that be have essentially locked down the process to two parties, and a sizable number of people feel that neither side is concerned with their interests then I think that's the real danger for fringe violence.

For whatever it's worth, I very much count myself as one of those whose interests aren't represented by either major party (if you think the Democrats in their current form truly embody a "liberal" spirit, you've got another thing coming, BIG time ), but there's no way in hell I'd ever advocate physically intimidating those I don't agree with to get my way - that's called being a civilized human being, party affiliation or not. Why should the rules be any different for "independents" or whatever one might call them? If your ideas are really that awesome, why should you need to get violent in order to gain support for them? And, to go back to my original point, why do we not hear more personalities at the top of the heap repeatedly driving this home and doing their part to keep things peaceful, as opposed to all the talk of "second-amendment solutions" to our problems? No, we'll never completely weed out all of the nutcases, but that shouldn't mean that we just let loose and pour gas on the fire.

[Ex-Cyber]

Gotta wonder where the parents/family was when this guy was spinning out of control. Apparently the people around him, including the officials at his college could see that he needed some professional help.

It's one thing to recognize that someone needs treatment for mental illness. It's quite another to actually overcome the cultural and economic barriers and get real treatment. Even then, there's no guarantee that treatment will be effective (or effective enough to be worth the cost/effort). A lot of health insurance plans exclude mental health treatments; others nominally include it while the insurer routinely delays or denies claims for mental health treatment. And that's assuming insurance is present at all, which it often isn't because people with mental illness are disproportionately unemployed.

[brentsg]

You've more or less got me here, as I'm having trouble finding specific praise for the weapon-toters, though there is plenty of encouragement for people who deliberately disrupted said meetings via shout-downs and other rabble-rousing (this memo from a certain PAC being one of the more blatant examples): regardless, those count as encouragement for a lack of civility and acknowledgment of one's opponent's right to be heard (still disturbing, but not inherently violent), so I've got to concede that point.

Believe me, I wasn't trying to "get you". I have just heard this a number of times recently and I've not had the opportunity to ask, and I am not aware of this first hand.

I don't pay a lot of attention to talk radio these days, but I do catch bits and pieces. When made to choose between NPR, Fox News affiliate stuff, bad music, and a terrible sports station that caters to the MAN's MAN stereotype.. I will often put it on Fox. Sometimes I'll hear comments urging some type of citizen turnout, or citizen revolt, but they always go way overboard emphasizing that it's peaceful results that they're calling for. I've heard several different discussions about the nutjob's that are clearly out there, and how that's not the way to achieve anything.

[brentsg]

Gotta wonder where the parents/family was when this guy was spinning out of control. Apparently the people around him, including the officials at his college could see that he needed some professional help.

It's one thing to recognize that someone needs treatment for mental illness. It's quite another to actually overcome the cultural and economic barriers and get real treatment. Even then, there's no guarantee that treatment will be effective (or effective enough to be worth the cost/effort). A lot of health insurance plans exclude mental health treatments; others nominally include it while the insurer routinely delays or denies claims for mental health treatment. And that's assuming insurance is present at all, which it often isn't because people with mental illness are disproportionately unemployed.

I hear where you're coming from, but I've got to think that if a college told me that my kid could not return unless he'd gotten some psychological treatment and been cleared, out of concern for people's safety.. I hope that would be a wakeup call if I was otherwise clueless.

Also, I unfortunately have a lot of first hand knowledge regarding mental health and treatment. It's one thing to have some depression going on. It's quite another to scare the people around you into thinking you are a ticking bomb waiting to go postal. People joke about this kind of thing, but when an organization goes on record with the concern it's some serious shit.

[GaijinPunch]

I was reading more about the shooter. Apparently at his best, he was a daily pot smoker that wasted away his days with friends that he made uncomfortable. At his worst he was a person that scared those around him, and came across as potentially dangerous.

He must have put something in his pot or quit smoking it. Who gets stoned and goes on a rampage? This would be the first time in recorded history.

EDIT: Or was imbalanced to begin with, of course.

[brentsg]

I was reading more about the shooter. Apparently at his best, he was a daily pot smoker that wasted away his days with friends that he made uncomfortable. At his worst he was a person that scared those around him, and came across as potentially dangerous.

He must have put something in his pot or quit smoking it. Who gets stoned and goes on a rampage? This would be the first time in recorded history.

The pot smoking was when he was at his best. The shooting rampage was when he was at his worst. It's like bookends I guess.

[GaijinPunch]

Hmm... I wonder what my bookends will be at my Eulogy. Hopefully nobody there knows about this forum, or has access to certain parts of my HD.

[Ex-Cyber]

Sometimes I'll hear comments urging some type of citizen turnout, or citizen revolt, but they always go way overboard emphasizing that it's peaceful results that they're calling for. I've heard several different discussions about the nutjob's that are clearly out there, and how that's not the way to achieve anything.

I agree that there aren't mainstream voices calling for violence, but there's a broader context here:

Preachers will be arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin.
FEMA's secretly establishing "re-education" camps.
Obamacare will cut the budget by killing grandma.
They'll ban the Bible.

And on and on and on. They either don't know or don't care that they're spreading demonizing lies about liberals and/or Democrats. The fucking noise machine never stops, and it wants you to be sure that the evil liberals are hiding under your bed and waiting for you to fall asleep so that they can eat your children and your heterosexuality and your freedom.

[brentsg]

it wants you to be sure that the evil liberals are hiding under your bed and waiting for you to fall asleep

Damnit, I'm going to have to find a new place to keep all those MVS games I never play then.

[Ex-Cyber]

Just to be clear, I doubt that this guy had partisan motivations, at least in the conventional sense. He seems a lot more like a LaRouchie than like any kind of right-winger or left-winger. I just think it doesn't help when people are out there deliberately cultivating persecution complexes and paranoia in the population.

[brentsg]

This was the best article I came across.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 79cbf6f758

[Drum]

Nice article.

Nuts like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones and Sarah Palin are definitely fuelling paranoiac delusions like the ones this guy had. Then again, nuts like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones and Sarah Palin are just a symptom of something deeper - they are tapping into something that's already there.

Pica County sheriff gave a nice speech at the news conference, seems to be echoing a lot of thoughts people have had in this thread:

http://www.azfamily.com/video/raw/News- ... 45734.html

[doctorx0079]

I missed the part where Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin said, "hey, get high and shoot people". If you think they said that you're mega-paranoid.

[Drum]

I missed the part where Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin said, "hey, get high and shoot people". If you think they said that you're mega-paranoid.

I did not say they said that. If you think I said that, you're mega-paranoid.

I'm talking about this kind of stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O664bUK2f9k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0

EDIT: Here's a nice list I just saw:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign ... n-timeline

Obviously compiling info like this is a rhetorical jab in itself, but you'd have to be blind and deaf or incredibly obtuse not to see the recent rise in militaristic rhetoric from right-wing pundits and figureheads that comes weirdly close to the level it was at the height of the terror scare (which was, by comparison to 'a democrat wants public health care and to increase the tax burden on the rich', actually credible). otoh, I agree with the general sentiment in the thread and don't think it's prudent to be eager to link this stuff to Loughner's unrest - the guy is a nut. Yes. But brentsg was awfully quick to nod along with BulletMagnet that it probably wasn't political (which in itself is dubious, given the target and that it was clearly premeditated) but brentsg went further, insisting that it wasn't political - oh no, the guy was just crazy ... and then he insinuates that maybe we shouldn't be surprised by her fate, because she might have possibly been lying. Just throwing that out there, right brentsg? And then he further adds that he expects more violence of this kind. And that it will be aimed at both parties.

This is a prime example of the kind of rhetorical shit Jones, Beck, Palin, O'Reilly etc. are using. It is obviously having some effect.

[BryanM]

And on and on and on. They either don't know or don't care that they're spreading demonizing lies about liberals and/or Democrats. The fucking noise machine never stops, and it wants you to be sure that the evil liberals are hiding under your bed and waiting for you to fall asleep so that they can eat your children and your heterosexuality and your freedom.

It's kind of like that planet of xenophobes in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy who want to destroy the universe. And it's inevitable they'll win, because they're obsessed and you just can't win if you don't care as much.

The opposition? I guess maybe Keith Olbermann. A guy you can live your entire life and not know about. While Beck farts and you have to hear about it the whole week.

Even the "Daily Show", serves to propagate the situation by not venturing outside the constructed dialogue - Stuff like a single payer system or a basic income are considered insane. Until people start thinking about them. And talking about them.

Network television controls everything. If Ralph Nadar was shoved down our throats two years ago with "Change you can maybe believe in if you wish really hard", then he'd be President right now.