Arizona Congresswoman shot

[kstart]

The nature of political Rhetoric was a concern for Gillfords.  Gillfords is commenting on the vandalism which occurred to her Arizona HQ, post-health bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4&feature=player_embedded

And on the night prior to this shooting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/gabrielle-giffords-email-centrism-moderation_n_806791.htm

Gabrielle Giffords Wrote Email Calling For 'Centrism And Moderation' On Eve Of Shooting  

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the shooting that left her critically injured, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) wrote an email to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R), asking his help in toning down the partisan rhetoric in the country.
"After you get settled, I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation," wrote Giffords. "I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."
Grayson recently announced that he would be stepping down from his public position to become director of the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Giffords's note was a congratulatory email in response to the news.
In an interview with cn|2 Politics, which received the email, Grayson said that he and Giffords became acquainted as part of the Aspen Institute's Rodel Fellowship program, and they often discussed the divisiveness in politics.
"That is something she and I have been quite passionate about -- to run for office in the right way and for the right reasons," Grayson said. "I think Gabby was really sincere in that email .... And I am going to to redouble my efforts."
Grayon's office was not immediately available for comment.
Before the shooting, Giffords had often faced extreme divisiveness at her events and during her campaign, and at one town hall meeting, aides had to call the police after an attendee dropped a gun.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/arizona-shootings-giffords-tea-party?intcmp=239

During last year's elections, Giffords was among Democrats targeted on Palin's Facebook page through the crosshairs of a rifle. After protests, Palin removed the crosshairs. Giffords was also the target of a campaign advert by her Tea Party-backed Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, a former marine who served in Iraq, who she beat by the slimmest of margins. "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly," it said. Kelly appeared on his own website in camouflage gear, holding a gun to promote the event.

I don't want to engage in Right-Left and butt horns, it's just interesting that these issues have been a concern for Giffords and that she had publicly spoken on these concerns.

If it makes others feel better though, these sentiments have been reflected by Republicans as well, and many commentators  have properly renounced this act of violence and as well a call for toning things down, in light of this event.

Edit: dropped a link sourcing quote

 

[57Chevy]

Quote:
"Giffords was among Democrats targeted on Palin's Facebook page through the crosshairs of a rifle"

And there goes another career  :stars:

 

[desert_rat]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/10/david-frum-what-sarah-palin-should-have-said-about-tucson-shooting/

 

[kstart]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/10/david-frum-what-sarah-palin-should-have-said-about-tucson-shooting/

I applaud this.  Good, constructive criticism.  I'm encouraged to see David Frum is take the higher road, rather than politicizing this.  That's showing some class and character, IMO.

 

[gun runner]

I believe this nutbar will get a not guilty on grounds of mental illness, and spend the rest of his days in the funnyfarm. The only thing tis will do is give the groups whon want tighter firearms controls will have more ammo to fire at the NRA and all of their friends. That will be an interesting couple of weeks of news, and then we will all get back to our lives. My  :2c:. Ubique

 

[muskrat89]

Whack-jobs we can all agree on.

I really think I hate these people...    http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-westboro-baptist-church-using-01092011,0,3092922.story

 

[mariomike]

I believe this nutbar will get a not guilty on grounds of mental illness, and spend the rest of his days in the funnyfarm.

That seems quite possible. However, I read that after President Reagan was shot, laws were changed to make it more difficult to claim insanity as a defence.

 

[muskrat89]

More on rhetoric -  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/10/history-lesson-political-rhetoric/

A snippet:

Those who now say our harsh political rhetoric is something new and generated mostly by an angry political right would do well to take a look at our history. They would find that political debate in some of the most vitriolic terms -- “vitriol” seems to be the word of choice these days -- has been with us and our press since the days when the American colonies began to protest British rule. Icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, bitter political rivals, were not above the fray.

Eric Burns, in his 2006 book “Infamous Scribblers,” which recounts the “rowdy beginnings” of American journalism, says early newspapers were more weapons of political war than they were impartial chroniclers of daily events.

“The golden age of America’s founding was also the gutter age of American reporting,” he wrote. “The Declaration of Independence was literature. The New England Courant talked trash. The Constitution of the United States was philosophy; the Boston Gazette slung mud, Philadelphia’s Aurora was less a celestial presence than a ground-level reek.”

In those days, journalists such as the fiery Samuel Adams preached violence, not civility, against those in government control, in that case the British.

We heard and read similar vitriolic rhetoric through such crusades as the fight to abolish slavery, the battle for women’s suffrage, the 20th century push for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights and efforts to end the Vietnam War. Driving all of those causes was the right to free speech. To be sure, there were many who tried to quiet those voices, including large segments of the mainstream media that were late to join those causes. Now, they want to silence those they don’t agree with again.

 

[mariomike]

"We heard and read similar vitriolic rhetoric through such crusades as the fight to abolish slavery, the battle for women’s suffrage, the 20th century push for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights and efforts to end the Vietnam War. Driving all of those causes was the right to free speech."

Controversial Alabama Governor George Wallace was shot while running for President. He said he "tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened."
Perhaps the vitriolic rhetoric is what draws the crowds?

 

[kstart]

It's interesting to read all the rhetoric and reactions amongst various news and media outlets.
If you scroll down the page, this site lists some of the common and "alt-news" media links:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

I don't think it's that outlandish to suggest the possibility that Loughner was 'psychotically engaged' perhaps with some of the tensions surrounding Gillards' political career, the tensions of the community.

How are people so against health care?  There's some rhetoric that universal access to health care = the feared "socialism", this combined with intense fears of economic collapse, loss of democracy, Constitution, chaos and anarchy-- there are some alt-media sites which are very focussed on these issues.  Lots of fear and uncertainty and distrust, right or wrong.  Fear of the breakdown of the State, fear of the "globalists". . .

For example, an ad showing up on Alex Jones' site, contains this script:

“IT BEGINES WITH THE PROMISE OF
HOPE & CHANGE
COMMUNISM…FASCISM…SOCIALISM…”
[Inserted, is a photo collage: Stalin, Hitler, Obama (in that order)]
“. . . TYRANNY!”
“INFOWARS.COM  PRISONPLANET.TV”

And "hope and change" a possible allusion as well to Obama.

Correlates to some of Loughner's 'reading list', The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx); Mein Kamph (Hitler): it can of course be total coincidence.

Loughner has fears of mind control, it's also reflected in the following proclamation:

"ALEX JONES’ INFOWARS.COM: BECAUSE THERE IS A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND”

(http://www.infowars.com/)

There is reflected a lot of fear of catastrophe, the fall of the economy, the rise of a police state. . . these seem to be some of the contents of the advertisements on these sites:

How to Survive Martial Law
http://www.martiallawsurvival.com/?utm_source=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_medium=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_term=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_content=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_campaign=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84

I firmly believe that conditions in this country are going to deteriorate rapidly once the right “event” triggers a crisis. Despite advice from well meaning friends, I felt I owed it to my fellow citizens who have been lulled into pacifism by promises of "hope and change." However, this information is only for the stout of heart, because what you will learn about it may shake your patriotism deeply... and perhaps even lead you to doubt your allegiance.

This is not to pick on Alex Jones, I'm sure there are plenty of examples.

I'm not against free speech.  I'm just saying that when one views these contents, one can see the fears it can feed, the panic, the potential to inflamme an unbalanced person who is not psycholigcally able to detach from it.

This advertisement on both Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones' site:

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM128/PR (It’s a long audio recording)  It expresses what maybe be more valuable than an American dollar in times of economic collapse.

It just seems to me that some of these contents are reflected in Laughner's rambles. . .

But the answers pend on a good forensics investigation; checking out the sites he subscribed to or followed.  It will also depend on the psych evaulations of the forensic psychiatrists, etc.

I'm just saying it's possible, Loughner has been influenced and or engaged in this sort of stuff, wherever exactly he finds it.

I'm saying look at the particular, the case of an unbalanced person, how they might react to this stuff?  It seems like Loughner was engaged at some level with some of this stuff, whatever stuff it is exactly or from where, particularly.  But it will be a forensics investigation, interviewing, etc. to come to more clearer determinations.  Psychosis, could have come as in an 'internet developed" psychosis, never leaving the parent's basement, or those few youth that are unlucky in first episode psychosis from pot smoking (CBC Documentary :"the Downside of High")

 

[desert_rat]

Not meaning to digress or amp up (or is that down?) the signal to noise ratio but about ten seconds on "the google" and you get stuff like..

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/can-you-say-posse-comitatus/

Is all this stuff just sort of the  21st century version of "Helter Skelter" just minus the dune buggies and the "charismatic leader"?

 

[Redeye]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

It seems the attempts to create moral equivalence are getting desperate.  This remark, put in its context, was actually quoting the movie "The Untouchables" and was made in a context which was clearly in jest (and, had it been made by a Republican, would also not fit into the definition of the "violent rhetoric" which is the problem).  Comparing this to "where ballots fail, bullets work" and "Second Amendment remedies" among other notes isn't really equivalent... but again, regardless of what actually motivated this psycho, playing a blame game is pointless, rather, it should be a stark reminder that "words matter" and perhaps using that sort of rhetoric is really not productive to the political process.  Neither is the other trend (which ironically is now being decried by a certain faction that seems fond of its use) of repeating lies hoping they become truth which has turned political debate, which I follow fairly closely in the US, into farce.

What motivated Loughner?  No one knows still and speculation doesn't really help, but if it does prompt some reflection by all on the messages they send, well, some good can come of tragedy perhaps.

 

[vonGarvin]

What motivated Loughner?  No one knows still and speculation doesn't really help, but if it does prompt some reflection by all on the messages they send, well, some good can come of tragedy perhaps.

You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it. 

 

[Redeye]

Well said.

You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it.

We had this discussion during an AAR this weekend in New Hampshire where a number of things didn't go well for me.  A bit of self-effacement sucks when you do it - but I quickly realized that it's what made for  a good learning experience, and sharing the rather crafty way in which my OC demonstrated one of the errors with my platoon showed some integrity in the process.

It is not the falling down, it's the getting back up that matters - and for what it might be worth I know this incident will prompt me to think a little more carefully about how I phrase things in debates, not that it makes a huge difference in the world but it to me matters that I will hold myself to a standard I expect of others.

 

[Redeye]

According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.

That seems quite possible. However, I read that after President Reagan was shot, laws were changed to make it more difficult to claim insanity as a defence.

 

[kstart]

Not meaning to digress or amp up (or is that down?) the signal to noise ratio but about ten seconds on "the google" and you get stuff like..

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/can-you-say-posse-comitatus/

Is all this stuff just sort of the  21st century version of "Helter Skelter" just minus the dune buggies and the "charismatic leader"?

That's what it reminded of me as well, "Helter Skelter", there's a sense of unrest and fears, and a lunatic goes on a fringe (minus the groupies). 

You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it. 

We can't really know and the speculations can be adding more flames.  We have to wait for the forensic investigations.  And yes, I believe some good can come out of tragedy, prompting some reflection on the way things are being done and that's from many levels. 

I'm going to refrain from further speculations.

More digression, but this is just a quote off my coffee mug :

peace.  it does not mean to be in a place where there is no noise, trouble or hard work.  it means to be in the midst of those things and still be calm in your heart.  (unnown)

Calm and with awareness can also be contageous: "lead by example", everyone's duty to do their best.  (There is a brilliant Vietnam Veteran, by the name of Charles Figley who's done some excellent work on levels of traumatization: the levels of direct (happened to you) and witnessing: 1)vicarious/bystander (direct witnessing) 2) simultaneous (all affected, at the scene); 3) contageous (trauma of others in relation to the exposure of others who are traumatized, e.g. taking on those feelings). . . group/family. . . beyond. . .?).  It makes me consider the value of reflecting calm, rationality.

Redeye, I was just responding while you were.  I think we are in agreement.

 

[kstart]

According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.

I think that's very possible as well.  I'd be interesting in seeing the results of the psych assessments, and that will take time for that to be done properly.

 

[mariomike]

According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.

More on that.
"It’s not clear yet whether attorneys for Jared Loughner’s lawyers will attempt the insanity defense in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), but John Hinckley’s successful insanity claim after shooting President Ronald Reagan led Congress to raise the bar, making the task harder, says the Associated Press. It is expected that the Justice Department will seek a death penalty.":
http://thecrimereport.org/2011/01/11/loughner-may-cite-diminished-capacity-to-figh/

 

[desert_rat]

great and thought-provoking discussion folks

looks like he has the "dream team for *accused & notorious bad guys & gals" for representation...

Judy Clarke, who has defended, amongst others, The Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympics bomber, Susan Smith (who drowned her toddlers in So. Carolina)

http://nyti.ms/e831r1

 

[57Chevy]

"It’s not clear yet whether attorneys for Jared Loughner’s lawyers will attempt the insanity defense 

Of course she (Judy Clarke) will.
What other insane defense could she possibly come up with ?