RickyP,
First off, thank you for explaining as it did not make sense what you were saying earlier.

Now that I understand, it is just a matter of disagreement I have that you equivocate what people say/do (imam's in your example) to what people feel (Ms. Giffords in your example).

There have been many who have displayed target symbols and gun sights in the use of advertising and politics. None of these were a problem before. I would have been among the first to decry Mrs. Palin's use of a target sight on Ms. Giffords saying we need to take her down. Too close to a call for assassination. Saying we need to focus on a target district is COMPLETELY different than DEATH to the West and to Israel (-Ahmadinejad). I have said that we need to be considerate of peoples feelings when it came to the mosque building, and you disagreed. People can build anywhere regardless of feelings in your opinion. However, people need to be considerate of others feelings when it comes to targeting a district?

Do you see a dichotomy there?

If Ms. Giffords stated concern about the targeting of her district was publicly voiced, then Mrs. Palin should have apologized. I have heard none of this prior to the shooting, have you?

rickyp wrote:

I am not sure I understand the equivalency Rickyp is speaking of. Are you saying it is morally equivalent to threaten death and terrorism on a people to using a target symbol in political ads? Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying its morally equivalent to demand that the leaders in the Islamic community take responsibility for the language and behaviors of their firebrand preachers, to insist that they govern their mosques in a way that they not be used for inciting hate and violence ...
with the demand that political leaders also take responsibility and govern their own language and that of their constituencies in order to ensure a respectful tone that doesn't incite hate and violence...
Its morally equivalent to demand that Islamic leaders be accountable for the discourse within their community, with the demand that people like Palin be held accountable for the use of imagery that disturbs. (Again, I point to MS Giffords use of Palins gunsites as a device that unsettled her... and to which no response was ever given.)

With all due respect, this merely changes the comparison from direct to indirect. I'll explain:

If I witness a murder and fail to report it I'm guilty of a crime and deserve to be convicted. If I witness some bag lady shoplifting a loaf of bread and fail to report it I'm also guilty of a crime. In some ways my crime (misprison) is exactly the same, but the two circumstances are not morally equivalent.

Giffords was "unsettled" by the use of the gunsights? That's understandable. Islamic terrorism is unsettling to lots of people. Ms. Gifford's degree of unsettlement may be exactly the same as the average degree to which residents of the the NYC area were unsettled by 9/11, but that doesn't make Ms. Palin's "crime" morally equivalent to the crime of 9/11.

Let's assume I've called for responsible Muslims to loudly denounce perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks. Let's say I've also called for them to denounce a mildly Judeophobic book sold in many fo their mosques' bookstores. That doesn't make the publishers or the authors of the book morally equivalent to the perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks.

I'm against Y and I'm against Z. Does that mean that Y and Z are morally equivalent and that if I don't voice my antipathy to each with equal force I'm being hypocritical?

I think it's in this sort of "equivalence" that bothers your critics, Ricky. Now in real life political leaders and pundits all over the USA have been calling for less hostility in our political discourse. Is it that you want conservative leaders in particular to single out Ms. Palin for direct criticism? We have seen that all sorts of people are guilty of much worse offenses than hers. When one of her ideological enemies singles her out for condemnation while largely ignoring those of his/her own ilk who do the same, that's hypocrisy. But if Ms. Palin had called for the death of millions while the other had merely used some gun targets in an ad, that would not by hypocrisy.

and now we get into freedom of speech issues. Levels of acceptance and who decides what is or is not acceptable? The Palin example, cross hairs on a map targeting a district is really no big deal (dis-tasteful, ok) and until now do the liberals decide to make an issue out of it. But if this were a target over her likeness, that would be another story of course. But even then, I doubt any would say it should be illegal? (or we would have to say that Payton manning headline in the New York Post was illegal) Where do we draw the lines? How can you determine what will or will not be taught at a house of worship? Christians call death to Satan, should that stop because we do of course have a few Satan worshippers?

I am more than a bit surprised to hear this coming from one of our more liberal people here, while I am (obviously) not a liberal, their support of free speech despite the horrible people they may be "supporting" is somewhat enviable, I can't "get behind" some of these scoundrels, but yes, they do have rights to free speech and liberals manage to support those they detest, something I just can't do.

GMTom - not necessarily 'freedom of speech'. Public opinion and general moral opprobrium can be just as effecting as state censorship - and less repressive.

I don't think we should silence people, just call them out and make it less comfortable for them when they use extreme language.

rickyp wrote:

I am not sure I understand the equivalency Rickyp is speaking of. Are you saying it is morally equivalent to threaten death and terrorism on a people to using a target symbol in political ads? Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying its morally equivalent to demand that the leaders in the Islamic community take responsibility for the language and behaviors of their firebrand preachers, to insist that they govern their mosques in a way that they not be used for inciting hate and violence ...with the demand that political leaders also take responsibility and govern their own language and that of their constituencies in order to ensure a respectful tone that doesn't incite hate and violence...

However, we know there is a direct relationship between extremist teaching of Islamist philosophy in some mosques and terrorism. There has been zero relationship established between political rhetoric and symbolism and the actions of Loughner.

For example, if there was some sort of mean-spirited liberal rhetoric against Reagan before he was shot, should I be able to link that, without evidence, to a causal level? In other words, liberal rhetoric/symbolism was responsible for the assassination attempt? That is the leap you are trying to make.

Its morally equivalent to demand that Islamic leaders be accountable for the discourse within their community, with the demand that people like Palin be held accountable for the use of imagery that disturbs. (Again, I point to MS Giffords use of Palins gunsites as a device that unsettled her... and to which no response was ever given.)

You are free to continue to claim this. I am free to call "bunk." I don't know a single American politician who would express genuine fear and then take ZERO steps to ensure his/her safety in light of said genuine fear. It might seem crass to suggest her stated fear was a political calculation, but there is at least some evidence to support it (admittedly it is what she didn't do). There is no evidence to suggest she was genuinely in fear. You can cite her bravery. I don't believe you could sell that to a jury. Do you believe her husband shared her alleged fear and yet agreed to put her in such "danger?" If that is the situation, would you respect him? Would you say he loves her?

Your scenario is absurd. Brave Representative Giffords, unwilling to be cowed by the threats of Palin, undeterred by the right-wing nuts at her beck and call, holds a "meet and greet" without security, putting her life on the line . . . for what purpose? Why was she unwilling to pay for a couple of security guards since she was so concerned?

We're not talking about Palin calling for violence against her and Palin's supporters having a track record of acting on her calls. However, that's exactly the situation with terrorists. You're off in your own dream world. Then again, that's surprising in what way?

X

Let's assume I've called for responsible Muslims to loudly denounce perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks. Let's say I've also called for them to denounce a mildly Judeophobic book sold in many fo their mosques' bookstores. That doesn't make the publishers or the authors of the book morally equivalent to the perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks.

No. But the responsible Muslims have been called upon to act morally against each provocation in exactly the same manner... One is perhaps more important, but they both require the same moral stance by the leaders. (The morality of the act is equivalent if the consequences are not.)

As for the Mosque in New York? (Where are the angry mobs gone to by the way?) The symbol of the cultural centre was one of peace and reconciliation. Even Laura Ingrahm said so when she interviewed the centre leader months before the "crisis". The problem with shutting down that mosque is that it characterizes the entire Islamic religion (and therefore its adherents) as having responsibility for 9/11. And I suppose that could be called akin to blood libel.
If the language used by the centre in justifying their wish to build was in any way contentious, was in any way combative, was in any way using 9/11 as a symbol...then I could understand the audience of people being affected negatively. But it wasn't.

Palin, on the other hand, knowingly chooses the tone of her communication. (Perhaps she doesn't know what all the words mean as Colbert points out...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8oQi1ty1hs
This is a you tube out take of Giffords commenting on gunsites in ads.

Steve

There has been zero relationship established between political rhetoric and symbolism and the actions of Loughner.

You're right. But there is a correlation between increased gun access and events like this. There seems to be a direct correlation between access to mental health professionals and events like this. And there has been a correlation between violent imagery and violent language in past events like this. All of that has meaning. And all of it is valid in examining ways to avoid another event.
Why is it that otehr politicians have toned down the rhetoric Steve? Becasue they realized, despite Loughren not having been directly linked to anything, that the language and imagery was poisonous. Because like sensible people they realized that this time, no direct link...But the next time?

Palins failing, is that she focused on dodging the direct link. She failed because she didn't accept that the moral choice would be to admit that she might have gone over the line in the past and pledge improvement on her part. Instead she saw herself as a victim.
I think, in a small way perhaps she was...but like all small people she didn't realize that it wasn't about her.

rickyp wrote:You're right. But there is a correlation between increased gun access and events like this.

You're not just moving the goal posts. You are changing sports. If there is, as you just admitted, no correlation between Palin's rhetoric/imagery and Loughner's actions, why are you so hung up about Palin?

And now that you're entire argument has been dismantled, you engage in, erm, "whataboutery." Now, suddenly, it's not about Palin, but about the wickedness of guns. It's about the mental health system. It's about anything that will distract others from understanding your original argument has just gone up in flames.

And there has been a correlation between violent imagery and violent language in past events like this.

Really? So, crazy people have acted on "violent imagery and violent language" in the past? That is shocking. Of course, you adduce no evidence--that would just lead to another debunking.

Still, it has nothing to do with Loughner.

All of that has meaning. There's a reason most politicians have toned down their rhetoric Steve.

Right--I agree. It's called either "public pressure" or "political correctness." Take your pick. The same President who spoke of "punishing our enemies" and used other "violent rhetoric" now says everyone needs to tone it down.

Okay. Still, none of it has a link to Loughner and Giffords.

They all realized, despite Loughren not having been directly linked to anything, that the language and imagery was poisonous.

Politically or physically? You keep trying to be ominous. That much is clear.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid take a back seat to no one with regard to their politically heated rhetoric. I note a distinct lack of your linking them to the problem. Why is that?

Palins failing, is that she focused on dodging the direct link.

The direct link that you acknowledge doesn't exist? Does your double-talk ever cease (rhetorical question)?

She failed because she didn't accept that the moral choice would be to admit that she might have gone over the line in the past and pledge improvement on her part. Instead she saw herself as a victim.

Maybe she's in fear because of all the vitriol pointed her way from the Left. She's extremely brave to do anything in public given all of the hostility she's facing. Maybe the President should award her a medal or make her an honorary Navy Seal?

Doctor Fate wrote:You're not just moving the goal posts. You are changing sports. If there is, as you just admitted, no correlation between Palin's rhetoric/imagery and Loughner's actions, why are you so hung up about Palin?

I think that there has been some confusion about the difference between the definitions of 'correlation' and 'causation'.

There is correlation between the two things - people using gun imagery to target Giffords and a guy using a real gun to target her.

So far there is no causal connection found between the two.

What people are 'hung up about' regarding Palin (and she's by no means the only culprit), is the contribution towards a toxic atmosphere through the use of particular tactics that are part of a pattern of suggesting that political debate has reached a stage of urgency. Hyperbole, exaggeration, violent imagery, suggestions that the opposition pose an imminent threat.

Mach may feel that's ok, but it's not something I want to see.

danivon wrote:Mach may feel that's ok, but it's not something I want to see.

I'm willing to take such complaints seriously--as soon as you and Ricky start blasting liberals by name for the same sorts of things. It hasn't happened and it won't. You want this to be a "right-wing" thing--despite momentary acknowledgments that "all" do this.

How many times has Palin's name been raised by liberals in this debate? How many times with any specificity has a Democrat been mentioned by a liberal? If this is serious outrage about the tone, then how about a little actual balance?

so we are to simply stop disagreeing with each other and just get along? No denouncing of the other side, no references that might be objectionable to ....? (whom I am not sure, I suppose it's to any who complain? but then again, complaining isn't "nice" either)

This is not a Palin issue, not a tea party issue, not Republican or Conservative. Liberals are every bit as guilty of this type of language. In fact, when it came to Bush, holy crap did we hear it then!? All sorts of chants for his head and death threats were common place. To "criticize" the other side in a civil way just doesn't happen, we are human, we get emotional, we relate to all these adjectives in speech and similarly to ads that are unique and bold. The problem is not new, the problem isn't even a real problem, never was until someone decided to manufacture one out of Sara Palins ad (that had nothing to do with the shooting and even had it, I still wouldn't buy into this whole "problem")



Good Times? Back when calling for an actual PERSON (not just a district) to be killed was accepted and gee, wasn't it funny? No outrage, just some good laughs! (and note the protesters shirt)

How many times has Palin's name been raised by liberals in this debate?

well lots. The most specific reference of her gun site imagery was by Gabrielle Giffords herself. Did you actually watch her interview?

The debate has meandered Steve. And thats because one group wants to discuss "causes and ways of preventing a repetition of such incidents." And the other side is interested in allocating blame.
The blame for this incident goes directly to a mentally irresponsible individual.
What is your recipe for the prevention of future incidents by mentally ill and irresponsible people?
He's in custody and will be held "accountable". I hardly think that circumstance will have any positive effect on the rate of such incidence... Which means that all of the other things that found their way into this discussion have relevance...
Including what the leaders of the political debate have said, and are saying...You may not like it, but Palin is still a voice for many in the republican party. Something like 16% in a recent poll support her as the republican nominee. As much as any other named. As such how she acts and reacts still has relevance as well.

rickyp wrote:well lots. The most specific reference of her gun site imagery was by Gabrielle Giffords herself. Did you actually watch her interview?

No, but I will gladly do so if you can tell me how it is related to the shooting.

The debate has meandered Steve. And thats because one group wants to discuss "causes and ways of preventing a repetition of such incidents." And the other side is interested in allocating blame.

If those are the two sides, you are on both. I know you think you are on the former, but you've been on the latter as well.

The blame for this incident goes directly to a mentally irresponsible individual.

Well, that's a clear enough statement. Can you just stop while you're ahead?

What is your recipe for the prevention of future incidents by mentally ill and irresponsible people?

No one can stop an irresponsible person. Many people gamble too much, drink too much, party too much--to the the extent that it ruins their lives and the lives of others. That's irresponsible and there is no way to stop it.

As for the mentally ill, lots of people knew about Loughner. That no one took definitive action is something that should be looked into. Were there procedures, loopholes, or people who failed to do their jobs that prevented him from being locked up and/or treated? I don't think such an investigation will paint the Sheriff or the college in a favorable light.

Including what the leaders of the political debate have said, and are saying...You may not like it, but Palin is still a voice for many in the republican party. Something like 16% in a recent poll support her as the republican nominee. As much as any other named.

So what? At this point, Edwards had more support than Obama did. It's name ID--nothing more and nothing less.

And, you have never demonstrated any link between anything said and what occurred, so what difference does Palin's polling make? Are you just posting random facts? Do you need a Glenn Beck-style chalkboard? Your "connect the dots" theories are worse than his.

As such how she acts and reacts still has relevance as well.

Based on . . . ?

Kudos Steve,
Ricky states: "one group wants to discuss "causes and ways of preventing a repetition of such incidents." And the other side is interested in allocating blame." Now I am honestly not trying to pick on anyone (really) But the calls here from the liberal side want to blame Palin, the Tea party and Conservatives but they are willing to accept the real blame (in this case) lies with a sick individual.

We have a sick person who acted outside of common sense and anything "human" yet the calls to reduce the rhetoric are called upon. Yet where were those calls when Bush was to be assassinated? Where were the calls when Clinton was to be assassinated? Both sides were ridiculous in the past, both sides are ridiculous now, neither side had anything to do with this case. It's simply part of humans being humans, nothing will change and honestly ...really, HONESTLY, does it really matter?

It's going to take a long time for the whole story of Loughner to be made clear. I'm quite certain there will be people ready to assign/imply blame at every step. We have a few steps available for examination now:

1 - Loughner was thrown out of his college for his kookiness and was told not to come back without a doctor's letter saying he was getting treated. He never came back. Should the fact that he was tossed out have triggered a mandatory doctor's visit? How about involuntary commitment? I have to say that, based on my long-time studying of the (former) Soviet Union, I have a problem with people getting thrown into mental institutions against their will. I can elaborate on this if you like but I'll assume you know what I'm talking about.

2- In AZ, his parents could have had him committed involuntarily even though he was an adult. They didn't. Why not? Should they be punished for not doing so? It sounds like his Dad tried to grab him that day. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 1011203220
Did he call the police? Should he be punished if he didn't?

3- He ran a red light driving around before the shooting but the Fish & Game officer had no probable cause to run him in or search his vehicle. Should we relax those requirements to prevent horrors like this? It seems to follow that crazed people on their way to blast their nemeses are crummy drivers...can that be enough to do a sanity check like an inebriation test? "Walk this line. Now stand on one leg and touch your nose. Now tell me about the Bilderbergers!"

4- One of the errands he had to run that day was buying ammo at Wal-Mart. Should we take guns and ammo out of the discount stores? What about insanity checks at checkout? How about a letter from a doctor before selling someone a weapon or ammo?

I'm honestly confused about the health angle though. Loughner was an adult and, apparently, never referred himself to a doctor. Even in an ER you can get a psych consult. Maybe he didn't think there was anything wrong with him. I imagine this will come out when the insanity defense is presented. But I'm curious and hope our Canadian and UK cousins can comment here. How do your respective systems catch mentally unstable adults who don't self-refer?

Pretty much the same there, look at my earlier example in Canada. A sick person who had government health care but did not get "caught" despite signs. And he was able to get guns, despite tough gun laws.If someone is crazy enough (and can hide it well enough) he's going to do whatever he wants.