Paul Krugman writes: "When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Climate of Hate
10 January 11
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton's election in 1992 - an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
A note of caution regarding our comment sections:
For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.
It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.
We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.
It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.
Adapt and overcome.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Or would you prefer we were all still British subjects?
If the representative government does not represent the people, than we are back to taxation without representation.
I had this ancestor named Josiah Bartlett who said taxation without representation was good reason to fire the government. You may remember him; he signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of the state of New Hampshire.
Twist yourself in rhetorical pretzels as much as you want, but your basic premise is still false.
"Parliament was elected, but not by the Americans."
At the time prior to 1785, there were no Americans... there were Colonists, who were subjects of the British Empire. Thus, Parliament could not possibly have been elected by Americans because there weren't any.
The Native Americans were not Americans either... they were each individual nations... the Creek, the Cherokee, the Apache... the list goes on and on. Not one of them called themselves Americans. Words have power. Use them wisely, please.
I agree with your second to last sentence...
But you go off the rails with the last one. Re-read what I wrote: "Not one of them called themselves Americans."
I did get my facts straight and my words accurate. Pity that your haste blinded you to that.
Who granted the indigenous people the "right" to be here? How did that person or committee deny the rights of the colonists to be here? Was it the Clovis Man or other early occupants of this land mass? Did native Americans believe in rights? We know they believed in slaves. Did native Americans teach the concept of inalienable rights to the Founding Fathers? Is that what they teach you in school these days?
My point is that you are using a concepts of rights which was discovered during the foundation of this nation and did not exist before it. Native Americans did not believe in the rights of tribes they conquered either. If we granted them rights that they did not believe in, and failed to form this nation, there would be no rights on this Earth for us to argue about.
And by this I mean other than the "Divine Right of Kings" or it's Oriental manifestations.
The Divine Right of Kings is exactly what Mr. Krugmen and his philosophical ilk pine for, only now it might be called the Divine Right of the People. It is the concept that majority rule can override the rights of any individual's right to happiness, to pursue his or her own life, or to exist.
I am saying that both parties are, like your left and right hands, two parts of the same body, pursuing the same goals. Vote for "hope" and "change" and you get, as you correctly note, MORE OF THE SAME. What does that suggest to you about your opiate, voting?
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
YES
Without "moneychangers" , or bankers, we would have no loans. We would go back to a time when usury fees were illegal, a time before the car, the train, the television, the internet, the plane, electricity, inexpensive clothing, plentiful food, a time before capitalism.
Except that the First TARP package was passed with absolutely NO OVERSIGHT. and the Tarped banks used that money to BUY SMALLER BANKS that had not been tarped, causing even more concentration of monies in the hands of the richest. Since they used that money to buy smaller banks and reward their greedy and inept CEOs, there is still no money available to give loans to small American businesses.
You are only required to purchase car insurance if you have a vehicle where the law requires it to be insured. If I make a personal decision to not buy a vehicle, then I do not need to buy car insurance. I am not given that luxury here. Either buy health insurance, or face monetary penalties and/or jail time.
Again, what should I call that if it is not tyrannical behavior?
I know, life is a tyranny. Doing everything right and we're still mortal. We're still going to die some day. We've all been completely helpless at one point and will be completely helpless again. Yep. Life is full of tyranny. Grow up and deal with it.
I imagine the more that others attempt to enforce their will upon others, the more events like the one in Tuscon will occur.
Perhaps a plan could be setup where only those that want to contribute could do so with their own money. However, sticking your grubby little paws into other people's pockets expecting them to pay for what programs you want, and then having the gall to tell them to just deal with it is a large part of the problem today and will only sow more hate towards each other.
Again, you pay for yourself and be responsible for yourself in this world, and I will do the same. Don't ask me for anything, and I will in turn extend the same respect to you. Agreed?
I didn't vote for it, why should I have to pay for it? Come to think of it, I didn't vote for the war in Afghanistan or Iraq... why are my kids (who were minors when the war began and thus had NO CHOICE) on the line for being turned into ground beef?
This is tyranny... it might be tyranny of the majority, but as parents used to say "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?"
Exactly!
It took me years to figure it out, but I did. :)
The problem is that we are being FORCED to pay for SOMEONE ELSE, whether it's for a so-called "need" or "want".
People say everyone NEEDS healthcare. Doesn't everyone need shelter? and food?
How about clean drinking water?
How about clothing?
How about a car so they can get to work?
And a refrigerator, stove etc because they must eat?
And daycare because they have kids and have to go to work?
The list can go on & on. There are lots of "needs" we all have.
But why do I have to pay for someone else? Why can't I give extra money I have to someone I want to give it to? Why not to my poor uncle who has leukemia, or my autistic niece?
Who decides my money should not go to them, but instead to a stranger?
So it's the government then and not the big money that buys them. Hmmm... Let's just turn it over to big business since we can't trust government? Are you crazy, by the way?
The USA is not a democracy, so the will of the majority is irrelevant. Elected officials are not allowed to do whatever they please. Elected officials MUST operate within the authority of the constitution. If the people want the constitution changed to mandate health insurance, then that is the way to go.
Over 90% of EVERYTHING the federal government does is illegal because there is no authority in the US constitution for it. When criminals (members of congress who vote for illegal legislation)ini tiate violence (IRS collection efforts) against the contributing members of society, they are the evil aggressors. Did you sleep through high school civics class or something?
True, we do have the finest government that lobbyist money can buy.
That was the case UNTIL our government, via both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress, got involved in the 70s with that whole HMO business, FORCING Americans into managed care.
That's when healthcare costs began to increase and have since skyrocketed, making decent healthcare out of reach for even the middle class unless they have expensive insurance.
Because of our Congress, healthcare costs are no enormous... leaving Americans DEPENDENT on government intervention.
Just one other way our government has taken away our liberties.
And part of the reason they deserve the blame is because of public campaign financing and special interests. :)
Not to mention that our entire voting system is CORRUPT. So it's not like we can *really* vote them out of office. Maybe a bit, but only to some extent.
It's kinda like that whole delusion of freedom of the press. Sure, the press is free to print all sorts of madness... but only on certain topics, and only to the extent the powerful elite allow it.
In a true free market, for-profit climate, insurance companies have to compete with not only each other, but with every other type of healthcare coverage/plan/program.
Whichever companies are most beneficial to consumers are the ones consumers will choose to go to. The ones that do not please the customer - whether it be by low prices, great service, or any other benefits - would soon not have enough customers to stay in business.
That's what true competition does. It forces every business to MEET THE NEEDS of its customer base. If it doesn't, the company fails.
The problem we have is that our govt gets involved and takes away the competition.
Healthcare costs skyrocketed after our govt FORCED Americans into managed care back in the 70s. That removed the competition, giving HMOs a monopoly that the govt could then control.
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html
Bravo! Fabulous argument for universal health care! Yahoo! Seriously! Let's just put the health insurance industry out of business once and for all. These middle men contribute nothing but cost. We don't need them. Screw the lobbyists! Forget monetary penalties and all that! Nationalize health care! Bravo to you.
A nationalized health industry will only introduce more bureaucratic middlemen who will further drive up the costs and furthermore, dictate what levels of coverage are and what they should cost thereby depriving you of any choice in the matter.
I don't care if you want others to decide what is best for you in your personal affairs; I am just asking that you stop thinking that because you like something, you should be able to enforce that ideal upon others.
It is called mutual respect, and as long as you refuse to provide it to others, then expect others to repeat Tuscon. That is a stark reality of life, push hard enough and others start pushing back, and if you don't like what they are pushing back with, then you shouldn't have started pushing to begin with.
I live in Switzerland. The system here is similar to the US. EXCEPT that universal healthcare coverage is mandated. If you can't afford it, basic coverage will be provided. The entire population is taken into account to achieve the most optimum health outcomes.
Interestingly, in Zurich (and also Basel, I believe) we have voted for some years, now, to dispense heroin to registered addicts. This has really paid off in terms of lives and health and a drop in petty crime.
That is correct. Doctors in France DO make house calls for free. France is not exactly "socialized healthcare" as Americans understand "Socialized" (which is not at all) Universal Coverage is mandated, but if you wish, for a surcharge, you will get better than "basic" HealthCare. (private room, Television/radi o, better menus are extra, but the quality of CARE itself is the same. You will still get top notch care, just no frills. And the doctor dictates when you are pushed out of the door, not the insurance company. The Insurance companies are less powerful because their premiums are much less than what is taken out in the US. Research is budgeted, not granted.
Problem is when you allow them in bed with govt, they do what any human may be tempted to do for their own benefit: jack up those prices & follow their greed into megaprofits.
If there was a true free market in health care - including insurance companies - the consumers (we the people) would decide which companies are worth dealing with and just how much they are worth. And by virtue of OUR choices, we would decide which companies are serving consumers well enough to actually stay in business & profit!
Instead our govt gives power & privilege to some, putting competitors out of business and taking the choice away from consumers. That leaves insurance companies with the power to do what they want, including things like denying coverage, telling us what we can & cannot do, charging outrageous prices for things we want/need etc.
Follow the US constitution and nearly major every problem facing the country would go away.
Simplistic bull. The Constitution doesn't have any language in it about corporations and the corruption of the international conglomerates that virtually own us. The Constitution lays down a wonderful foundation...AN D THAT'S ALL. It does not substitute for lawmaking and it was never intended to.
All hope of getting big $$ out of our government when the United States Supreme Court decided corporations could contribute big $$ to campaigns --
They gave my LIBERTY away to big $$ - without knowing WHO those corporations are - or from what country that money comes.
"When men like John Boehner and women like Sarah Palin tell you that they are shocked and saddened by what has occurred you may well assume that they are indeed. They inspired the rampage, and they are now confronted by what they have wrought." (Marc Ash)
That beautiful little girl, Christina Greene, died for what? War within our country.
I believe Palin is a terrorist.
What part of UNITED (doesn't Boner understand) STATES?
What did I say that led you to automatically assume I was pro-war?
That is right, nothing. There is neither an R nor D next to my name.
The exact same tyranny. Now, what can anyone do about it, since both parties have shown no interest in stopping the wars, the looting, the debt... and so on? Vote some more? Good luck!
Sounds like you're ready to move to another country. Wherever you land, I hope you find peace and tranquility.
"Hey, you don't like British control, well, then, move out of the British-control led colonies!"
If they had left instead of fight against the tyranny, there would be no America today!
Finish your education first. Then educate the masses. Oh, and Glen Beck U. doesn't count. Just thought I'd let you know.
Peace and Tranquility may be hard to find, since the US is prone to invade everyone.
Good luck! Ta-ta now!
AMEN to that!
Nothing, nothing at all excuses the assassination of an elected politician. John F Kennedy, the almost successful attempt on Ronald Reagan, Lincoln, someone else, and now this. In addition to the other 6 people murdered at Arizona.
What is it about you Americans?
I'm from UK
Sometimes it's for the better, and sweeping generalizations cast down from a faux moralist's high horse don't mean much. The problem is that it's rarely the ones who deserve it that get assassinated because "rational" people adhere to the mythology you're preaching while "irrational" people just kill who they want. If one judges entirely by the results of that bargain, it's no wonder the world is run by violent, bigoted lunatics.
And what's special about politicians? They get exceptional compensation for shafting us, and while not specific to the current situation, I place more value on the life of my garbage collector, and would feel far more sympathetic in the event of his demise.
Millionaire Congressmen merit no sympathy.
Call it paying for your health care services, doing the right thing, paying for your own expenses, not being a freeloader....
Some States force you to buy insurance before you can drive a car. What is so different: You are consumming, or will eventually consume Health Care Services. I see nothing wrong in making YOU TOO pay for it, instead of me. Before the Healthcare Bill, the indigent (and the illegals) were taken care of as well, but my hospital charged me $5.00 for one (1) aspirin so they could afford to give free healthcare to those who couldn't (or wouldn't).
If the Constitution stands in the way, augment the FICA tax to include Healthcare services. Is FICA unconstitutiona l too?
The same people who scream "anticonstituti onal to force me to buy insurance" are the same ones who decry the potential wastefulness of single payer. (Which it isn't: Look at France, a socialist country who according the World Health Organization has the best Health Care System in the world, with 84% satisfaction, and at half the price.We rank 37. I think there is room for improvement)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Tyranny does not require a single body... another name for Democracy is the tyranny of the mob. Even assuming that a majority holds an opinion does not make that opinion valid, correct, or even "good." If 51% of the population decided to murder the other 49%, would you appeal to numbers as you do here and say that it's ok, because that's how Democracy works? Or would you then recognize the logical fallacy called appeal to numbers for what it is, a smokescreen designed to deflect any real critical thought?
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
----
Rubbish. The "wolves" and "sheep" have already previously agreed murder is criminal - it's called having ground rules aka a constitution.
Yeah, and at one time the wolves agreed tha the sheep were not wolves and therefore could be enslaved. Your naievete is showing.
What the authors of this are really saying is that murder is justifiable under some circumstances. Murder is not justifiable under any political system - whether committed by some some poor idiot who swallows hate speech or by those in control of the state.
I sometimes have a very difficult time listening to people like Michael and trying to rationalize their viewpoints with what America stands for. The two things just are totally incongruent.
I wonder, would you have so judged Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and all those patriotic revolutionaries who dissented against British tyranny?
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
This is not to say I would ever agree with mindless shooting of innocents, as with this Arizona shooting.
2. TSA grabbing my junk
3. Patriot Act
4. Warrantless wiretapping
5. The President's Asassination program
Just a few for brevities sake
Again I will ask one simple question. If I am not to consider the above as fitting the definition of tyranny, then what should I call it? To me, it fits or is at the very least, synonymous with tyrannical behavior.
And by the way, the threat of monetary penalties and/or jail for not buying medical insurance are Republican talking points. Like most Republican talking points they are at variance with reality (a lie). They don't exist in reality. Look it up.
The tyranny lies in the fact that the government presumes to provide services at the point of a gun.
If I decide to opt out of whatever cutsie program you think will save the world, I will have my assets stripped by force and if I resist that I will have my freedom and possibly my life taken as well. That's tyranny my dear.
The initiation of force against innocent people to extort life and property is immoral and criminal.
The kid was a nut job but his anger against oppression and extortion isn't at all surprising.
I call incitement to murder, accessory to murder. Those who promote murder belong in jail. Just because they incite and then claim that they did not intend the result is a lie.
Pretty much the same words used by the British during the early acts of the American Revolution.
While i do Not condone the young man's actions, i believe he harbors many of the feelings of frustration and anger, many Americans have with government, especially after the "Obama betrayal".
Gun laws won't change much but inciting riots, terror, kill, etc with the words they made clear their intentions are to get "rid" of the opposition by any means. Words are powerful - directly or subliminally.
Boner's agenda to get rid of Obama in 2012 instead of "fixing" things in the House that can help "we the people" is another terrorist act. We the people don't expect the House to get rid of a President unless the President should be impeached.
Besides if I said anything to the opposition in my lawsuit as Palin posted on her Web Site -- I'd be in jail.
Yes...yes, as a matter of fact, that would be a great idea! Nothing like the rule of law, eh?
More like it's about freakin time for people to stand up for what they believe in and stop being complacent accessories in the crimes committed by our so called leaders.
Please do us all a favor and stop being complicit in murder and extortion.
-------
And start shooting congresswomen, I suppose? Afterall, you know they're "guilty" already, so why stop?
Yes. Government has no business in these activities... and taking money by force for illegal activities or legislated charity is, by any definition, tyranny. So what now? Vote some more? How's that working for you?
I recall this from the period of the Vietnam war.
Mr Rivero runs a website which daily feeds his audience claims that the Holocaust never happened, that there is a World Jewish conspiracy, that liberal democracy is tyranny, that the elections are fixed, that the government intends to corral 'dissenters' into FEMA camps, that 911 was 'an inside job', that Israel runs the USA, that Congress is "Israel's whore" etc. And more.
Mr Rivero peddles genuine neo-nazi propaganda whilst denouncing American democrats (Rep or Dem) as fascists and representatives of a global conspiracy.
Mr Rivero publishes far-right propaganda: including Willis Carto's anti-semitic screeds, the racist rants of homicidal Curt Maynard; he supports Holocaust Denial and repeats known lies about Ariel Sharon, claiming "we the Jews control America".
Mr Rivero is an anti-semitic, far-right holocaust denier whom daily peddles Hitlerite World Jewish Conspiracy. Mr Rivero is himself part of the problem.
See for yourself, type his name in google.....(Mik e Rivero, WRH)
And another involved party dead in Cheney nuke deal dead......
Your a great man
Obama, Bush -- both the Ds & Rs have the same goal. Obama is just next in the line of Bush/Clinton dynasty since they couldn't get Hillary in there.
It's those darned elites who don't want to release their throttle-hold of power.
Reagan emptied the mental hospitals and we see the result with mental cases drifting around without any guidance or care. If we truly cared, we would provide these individuals with a safe haven to get rehabilitated and protect the rest of us. .
Now that we have a super duper military force, dont you feel much better?
Well?
Well, other than prosecuting an undeclared war for more than 60 days (which violates the War Powers Act)... or other than torture (which violates the Geneva Convention, to which we are signatories)... no, nothing illegal. :)
You would be hard pressed to find much legal that the president and congress does.
Remember, every "law" enacted by congress is void if it is not authorized by the US constitution.
Completely absurd. The Constitution wasn't written to cover everything, and it wasn't written by men who were sufficiently clairvoyant to be able to see the future. Corporations didn't exist when the Constitution was written and that American law must grow and expand beyond the confines of the Constitution was presumed upon at it's inception. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from making laws over matters the Constitution is silent on.
Quoting Michael Rivero:
Are you saying our current government is a tyranny? If so, what is your evidence?
In this land, we elect a new dictator every four years. The great modern dictator was FDR. The democratic party has alot to answer for by putting this current dictator in power.
Abraham Lincoln.
He links to this page, and adds instruction to his readers:
-------------
Jan 10 11:18
Arizona shooting - Climate of Hate
Tags:
* ASSASSINATION
Webmaster's Commentary:
Wow! Someone does NOT like the comment I posted! Kindly correct that for me! :)
-----------------
The Faux News crowd claims that both sides engage in violent speech. Can anyone name any similar "jokes" or comments made about decapitating opponents by those not on Fox News' side?
The UK of today has a lower percentage of extreme rightwing nut jobs in the population than does the US
If i lived in the UK i wouldn't have to worry about becoming destitute if i had a catastrophic illness
The diversity of opinions and quality of journalism is better.
Public transportation is much better in the UK -- one isn't practically forccd to get a private vehicle in order to get around
Just a few random examples of why there are worse things than being a citizen of the UK.
Krugmen is a loyalist, no doubt about it. As long as his man is in office, there should be no limit to the power to "do good" to us, and no valid voice of opposition. The only thing saving us from insanity is the internet.
The Reichstag is burning and Krugmen will write the decree. Look forward to an Obamadiktate.
We've all heard "pundints" [sic], friends and acquaintances calmly parrot the statement that the Tucson shooting had nothing to do with anything. Neville Chamberlain is an archetype and we seem determined to rehydrate it like children who believe that the blanket will protect them against the monster in the room.
And, even if it was a "favorite," what makes you think he UNDERSTOOD a word of Marx & Engels' manifesto (which called, by the way, for such un-American reforms as universal suffrage [that means the right to vote], free trade unions, a free press and so on).
By the way, I understand that he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf and, for all I know, he may have read the Bible from cover to cover. Who knows? Maybe they were "favorites" too. So what?
So what indeed! It means virtually nothing and any dolt who wants to say that this proves he was a leftist or something is an idiot. I've read the Koran precisely because I wanted to understand Islam better. Does that make me a Muslim? Fat chance of that!
Twist yourself in mental pretzels as much as you want, but the fact remains that if this guy were a leftist, he would have shot Jan Brewer, not Ms. Giffords. As for your "proof" that he was a left winger because he read the Communist Manifesto, he also read Hitler's Mein Kampf. Now turn yourself into another pretzel trying to claim that Hitler was also a leftist.
Yes, because no one EVER kills anyone for any reason other than left-versus-rig ht... never happens for ANY other reason.
And let's not forget that she didn't die... it is possible that she was not the target, that the actual target was one of the people that actually died, and that she was simply a casualty rather than a target.
Don't worry Texas Aggie. They probably will! They're just that stupid!
Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it was first published in 1848 in German. It was the manifesto of the Communist League, defining a platform of action and a series of policy positions to distinguish "communists" from other types of socialist organizations.
So here is a suggestion.
Let's take the Republicans who want to blame the Democrats, the Democrats who want to blame Republicans, the ADL, the gun grabbers and the nuts and lock them in a steel cage. Each one gets a chainsaw. WE sell tickets and donate the money to the families in Arizona. Whichever political operative comes out of the cage with the most body parts still intact, we all agree to blame whoever they say to blame for this tragedy.
Then we can get back to last Friday's Massachusetts State Supreme Court Decision regarding fraudulent foreclosures, which unlike the Arizona tragedy, actually does impact all of our lives.
...and blind optimism in the face of tyranny is just as dangerous violence. The actual distortion comes from separating Left from Right. Step out of the "bi-polar" extremism to try and glimpse a new reality principle please.
I don't recall using the word "blind" to describe the optimism of Democrats. True optimism sees very well that being a good, decent human being, who is compassionate and loving, is the highest goal that we can attain, and fear has nothing to do with that.
This world is going through a transformation in consciousness, and this is causing current polarity. We are being purposely separated, so I guess we need to make sure that we end up in the right group, huh? Best of luck to you and your reality principle.
-
That's odd seeing as Mr Rivero has himself shamelessly exploited the event for political ends at his own website, publishing a whole string of stories about the incident and its ramifications.
Mr Rivero claims that the shooting is "A staged incident to distract the media."
Mr Rivero also claims it is "fake terror" perpetrated by the government itself so as to allow it to introduce "emergency measures".
Fake terror, Mr Rivero? A dead child says otherwise. Shame on you.
Why don't you tell people here about the Holocaust not happening? Or how Al Qaida "don't exist" and how Dick Cheney did 911? How the government wants to put the people in FEMA camps? How 'the Jews rule America"? How Hitler was "right"?
You are part of the problem, Mr Rivero, not the solution.
And which of those things have anything to do with the event in Arizona?
I guess we could also discuss flat earth, but I personally don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand... do you?
It is a typical right wing debate tactic to try to pretend that evidence against them is irrelevant. As is obvious to everyone, the comments of anti-fascist were about Mr. Rivero, not the event in AZ and trying to evade the evidence that Mr. Rivero is more than a few bricks shy of a load is not at all honest, Mr. Hodder.
Speaking of honest, you didn't answer my question. What, specifically, does the HOLOCAUST have to do with the events in Arizona that we are discussing? Was this 22 year old a grand-son of one of the Nazi War Crimninals?
Or are you engaging the logical fallacy of argument by ad hominem? Are you really trying to say that anyone that holds an opinion on something NOT germane to the discussion at hand that you disagree with AUTOMATICALLY means that their opinions on the subject at hand are incorrect?
So by your logic, since I am not very well gifted in Astrophyics, I should not comment on sculpture?
Try again please, but this time let's be logical...
Evidence for this includes his promotion of Holocaust Denial. Who does he use to promote Holocaust denial? Ernst Zundel, a known supporter of neo-nazi and skinhead groups in Austria/Germany etc.
Furthermore, Rivero heavily promotes Willis Carto, head of Liberty Lobby, publisher of the Holocaust denying IHR and TheBarnesReview . Mr Rivero promotes much of Willis Carto's output, notwithstanding that Willis Carto holds Holocaust denying meetings including, for example, a former SS Kommando from the Einstazgruppen - the mobile killing units deployed to exterminate Jews following Nazi invasion of Russia.
These people are the real deal - genuine Nazis. And Mr Rivero promotes them. He is being wholly disingenuous when he criticises "fascism". What fascism? Liberal democracy? Sure.
Both parties are the same--they just take turns almost every 8 years--A cycle pattern.
Ever wondered--how candidates from both parties are chosen and has the last say?
Gifford is Jewish---If your Jewish--more of a chance of getting Chosen.
Sure Cure Feds--2X4 Term limits max. Weed out free loaders.
sj
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Rightwingers loved government when Bush was president, and called anyone who disagreed with Bush's trampling of the constitution liberal traitors, but when rightwingers lose a presidential election, they hate government again, and they're the world's sorest losers. So don't give me this "this isn't hate, it's anger against tyranny" crock of doodle doo. It's typical and predictable precisely because it's a fundamental element of the rightwing psyche. How much more proof do you need? We've had at least 20 years of proof.
Portiz -- of course Repubs will spin this to meet their needs.
I too have been expecting this since the '08 election.
Connect the dot's yourself rather than call names.
Anyone who throws the blanket of "...exactly the problem." rather than specifically point out valid counter debate, most likely really has no true clue of what's going on in their own home.
The Massachusets court decision is FAR more important than this single tragedy - the foreclosure crisis is a multiple tragedy affecting greater numbers of people in every state, every city, every town.
Rivero trying to justify this as a normal reaction to tyranny when it is something that was bound to happen given enough encouragement by the right wing from Beck to Palin to Boehner to Angle to Limbaugh and many others amounts to duplicity. To claim that he writes cogently and has sound thought processes when it is obvious that nothing of the sort has occurred raises questions about your own thought processes.
We have had a decade of the government, both Democrat and Republican controlled, that bows and scrapes to Wall Street. No terrorist, even with an atomic bomb, could have caused more damage to the lives of ordinary Americans than Wall Street has in the years since the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Millions are homeless. Millions more on food stamps. High-paying jobs have been sent to foreign nations by Federal tax credits. Wall Street got caught selling fraudulent mortgage-backed -securities, and with the help of the Federal Government is dropping the losses on the American people. That is not capitalism or even socialism; that is fascism.
Should we not all stand up and oppose fascism?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." -- The Declaration of Independence.
Shut down the media sources of the vitriol.
When we lose the right to vote, as the SC did to us in 2000 and as occurred in Ohio in 2004, then you can talk about opposing fascism, but as long as votes exist, calling our government tyrannical is indicative of ignorance. And justifying assassination is the beginning of a fascist dictatorship.
What we are seeing is a demented mindset, viciously selfish. I saw them devour one another in Manassass, Virginia, jealous of one another's wealth and homes. There is not semblance of honor or caring or good among these people. It is as if a sullen evil is on the land, infecting our nation to the bone.
You're idea of "tyranny," Sir, seems to be as skewed as a 12 year old who simple did not get what he wanted in 2010. I'm sure you got some of what you wanted in 2012. But still it's "tyranny?" Got the tax breaks for the rich, despite those of us who objected, though what I think was a bad "compromise." But "tyranny?" No. No "tyranny" there. Health care went from not even the possibility of single payer, to no possibility of gov option, to a big give away to insurance companies. I don't like it. But "tyranny?" If any of this were tyranny it really would have been "shoved down our throats," not altered: no change, no compromise.
However there is potential "tyranny" here. The tyranny of those who want to shove what they want down everyone else's throats what they demand, and if they must at the end of a gun. A group, apparently, you are a proud member of. A group that, at best, excuses murder by justifying it with bogus claims of "tyranny."
If you believe anyone got what they wanted in 2010 besides corporate America and Wall Street, then you sir are the 12 year old with the skewed perspective.
I think we have to take our 'ratings'with a pound of salt.
That's because others are voting at the same time! :)
Do you really thing the nation is being managed well?
I suppose if you are a banker chowing down on one of those Wall Street $150 burgers life looks pretty good, but for the rest of us out here, the nation is clearly in decline. Is patriotism to be measured by standing silently as the nation implodes from greed and corruption?
The reason we have a First Amendment is a recognition that loyal citizens have a right and a duty to point out where the government is making mistakes.
Supporting government when it is wrong is not the duty of a citizen but that of a slave.
Geez!
Funny, but here's what you posted one Christmas Eve:
---------
How Much Blood Can a Bloodsucker Suck?
How much blood can a bloodsucker suck? Several trillion pints, er dollars, obviously.
Using the greatest scam in history, Holocaust™ Reparations which will continue to be sucked from Germany and others till the Sun burns out. The 2nd and 3rd generation Holocaust™ grifters are already making a move, putting out PR releases stating that they are needing professional 'help' to deal with the trauma...
Then there will always be money needed to keep Holocaust™ Land theme parks up and running and all those other sites deemed holy by the greatest bunch of frauds and con artists ever to walk the Earth.
---------------------
Not a Holocaust denier? Not a purveyor of hateful rhetoric? Not an anti-semite? Oh yeah, sure he's not.
That happened over 50 years ago, and we have seen many horrible atrocities since then. Millions upon millions have been killed in wars, massacres, catastrophes, and famine etc. Hundreds if not thousands are dying all over the world every month, in present times.
The Holocaust is not relevant here.
The fact that you keep name-calling & bringing up one event from 50+ years ago lends credence to the notion that you don't have any facts to back up your arguments against what others here are saying.
"I'm sure you got some of what you wanted in 2012."
I'm checking my calendar, but it's 01/10/2010... How did anyone get what they wanted (past tense) in 2012? Are you a time traveler? :)
Seriously? Consider the obvious example, Obama... we voted out Bush because Obama promised "hope" and "change" and "transparency" and an end to so many other things...
And we are still living with those things today. How great it was that we got to VOTE! It did SOOOOOO much.
The terrible and debilitating policies that he implemented during his eight years will take at least another eight years to undo. Expecting such a large change in just two years is unrealistic and I firmly believe that no GOP candidate would have been able to get our butts out of this mess any better than Obama has so far.
Fair enough. Mea Culpa, that was a bad example using Bush. However, the policies of torture and state secrets and prosecuting illegal wars have NOT changed, and they could have changed literally overnight... They would not have taken eight years to correct for.
No, and we didn't vote him in either.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Elections in America are incredibly corrupt, and become more so all the time.
And that's not even getting into the 2-party system. How "just and fair" is it that candidates can only really compete if they are a member of one those 2 parties? (who are really working towards the same end goal anyway).
So much for freedom of choice!
As such, I suggest that any apparent ideology - right or left - was a product of mental instability, and not a thoughtful political commitment, however unconventional.
Whatever his inner demons, they cannot be attributed to any text, political or otherwise. To treat him as a manifestation of a "sick society" might be emotionally satisfying, but it is not empirically credible.
Thinking in this way, moreover, soon makes it sensible to blame J. D. Salinger for the acts of John Hinckley Jr. against President Reagan, David Mark Chapman against John Lennon and (who knows?) maybe "heavy metal" for teen suicides and Elvis for 1950s juvenile delinquency.
From there, it is a quick, long stride down the greasy slope to censorship.
Despise Sarah Palin (or Karl Marx) as some people do, surely the current toxic political atmosphere in the USA has its origns elsewhere and is no excuse for shredding the noblest of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States ... the 1st.
Out of curiosity, why not? Do you suggest that we arrest and put on trial every schoolchild who says "I'm gonna kill you for that," because obviously they really are inciting violence?
If not, I don't see anything but a hypocritical double standard, that what you agree with can be 'protected speech,' while what you disagree with is not.
Speech is either free or it is not. It cannot be "free with limitations."
I'd rather punish people who DO something, not those who SPEAK. How about you?
To claim that a school kid yelling "I'm going to kill you" is the equivalent of a candidate calling for voters to exercise their second amendment rights or that voters should be armed and dangerous is indicative either of duplicity or stupidity.
So long as consumers have the EQUAL right to sue them, and they are allowed the FULL consequences of their lies.
Let's see just how long they would stay in business once word got around that they are liars!
i doubt that any pol would call for open, bloody rebellion. its bad for business.
Among the most disingenuous statements I've read arising from this tragedy came from a Palin staffer, who said that the crosshairs were the same as many to be found on maps, and that no one in Palin's company (much less Sarah herself) imagined that anyone would mistake it for a gun-sight. In the alternative, I suggest that Ms. Palin's slogan, "Don't retreat, reload," tells us all we need to know about this woman.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but Ms. Palin seems to think she is among the select few who can fool all of the people all of the time. Of course, to her, people include only "real" Americans ...
These people did what they could to stop this guy from escalating, and even though they did not succeed, we might want to offer them some consideration as representative of the true spirit of America.
As to our current crop of malcontents, I don't like them any more than anyone else. But they are hardly new. Some of you may recall The Order and its reign of terror in the Pacific Northwest. Some may recall when Ronald Reagan was shot.
Who did we blame for their activities? Only the hands that held the guns and pulled the triggers. As is only right.
Collective blame, in the end, would have us believe that we are all guilty. A foolish notion.
True statement. But the same is true of people who didn't stop the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" rhetoric... or those who allow our children to march off to a war that is illegal.
Briefly, I noted that it didn't take a 'sick mind' to see the crosshairs as part of a gunsight rather than a theodolite. Media and computer games enforce the association. I added that violent removal of a representative was bound to elicit conspiracy theories, and that the possibility of an accomplice encourages them. Foreign terror groups regularly exploit mentally ill people as assassins, and nothing prevents a homegrown hate group from using the tactic. I suggested two questions were important, even to pious people (the author of the essay identifies herself as such)- 1/ how to repair the fractured political process if representatives /candidates and constituents must fear to meet publicly and 2/ should November's loser be barred from running because he must not seem to profit from the violence?
The one reply picked up a minor point I'd made - it's a mistake to call Loughner left wing. It then went on to ignore the rest and said this: The Democrats have launched an all out attack against Sarah Palin and tea partiers. The charge is being an accomplice to murder. There is no justification or evidence to support this claim.
The charge is obscene. It must be fully and completely exposed as being the grossest form of political opportunism, likely pushed by Democratic operatives working for the President.
http://www.illinoisloop.org/stopthehate/
But as Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
No matter why this happened the destruction of free speech is the worst possible response.
Alleged Giffords Shooter Shares Currency Plot Obsession with Anti-Abortion Killer
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/8/21576/68127
We are doomed to more violence and our problems will go unsolved because the American value of compromise is dead.
No one here is advocating censorship. Where did you get that idea? I reserve the right to criticize hate speech. In fact I think it's our duty to criticize hate speech. Where was your indignation when people threatened violence against the government ?
Criticize, yes. Stop, no.
And given that all governments are an expression of violence against their people and other people... why is violence against government necessarily wrong?
What are you thinking about, Madame Governor and Mister Senator? Are you proud of yourself and your gun-toting followers, Sarah Palin? What are you going to do when the next case is argued before your court, Mr. Chief Justice? How are you going to conduct yourself, Mr. Beck, Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh?
Are you ready, Mr. Speaker, to moderate your own HELL NO commentary and urge your followers like the “gentle lady” from Minnesota to get over their anger, stop the hateful and inflammatory rhetoric, and get to work on the needs and interests of the country, not just their own (and your) re-elections?
Otherwise, all of you, please stop the pious words, the hypocritical expressions of sympathy, the shallow references to the Constitution. They only add insult to injury.
While I am not an "ally" of Mr. Rivero, I must reply to this. This is an argument by appeal to numbers... a logical fallacy, and it highlights the very real danger of democracy... If a "large percentage" of the population believe that they are the "master race," and that the others should be killed off... is it ok, since they are a "large percentage?" How about if that large percentage beceomes the majority? Obviously, the idea that a large percentage supporting an evil idea making it valid and somehow "addresses inequality" is wrong.
The tyranny of the majority is to be feared... not promoted. Liberty requires us to leave well enough alone, not come up with ever more invasive and indeed unjust decisions!
Yes, I was surprised by the violence in Tuscon. No, political rhetoric didn't cause it. It's grandiose to imagine that you can persuade people to murder - and throw away their own lives in the process - by your words.
On the other hand, in regions where gun ownership is more open, common and less restricted, there is much less violence. Makes sense - who wants to go on a gun rampage knowing that everyone around you might be packing?
Human beings have always been prone to violence throughout history. Denying that, or blocking one type of weapon (guns), will not change that.
Bullies are much less inclined to attack someone they know can fight back.
(I am not a gun owner myself, but I understand the logic)
But two valid points remain:
1) Humans are prone to violence. Not *every* human, but it is part of human nature.
2) People are much more likely to restrain their violent behavior if they will get caught/receive violence back.
Note that "much more likely" does not mean "Never". There will always be an occasional mentally ill person, or someone so bent on violence the prospect of their own death or destruction will not discourage them.
But those same people are the ones who will not let something written on a piece of paper (the law) stand in their way, either!
We don't yet know who will 'gain the most' from Loughner's actions.
Latest information suggests that Loughner wasn't coached by anyone, though this was something I thought possible while there was suspicion that he had an accomplice.
What is becoming clear is that he disrupted classes, frightened his classmates and worried his friends, but his school dealt with him by suspending him and telling him to get a certificate that his head was on straight if he wanted to come back.
He lived with his parents. Where the hell were they? Just present in body but otherwise out to lunch?
What a pity it is that his friend Tierny didn't answer that 2 a.m. call. Maybe he could have been stopped.
Marginalising the sick has cost us dear.
Nope.
There are many layers to a political shooting but at base, down at the bottom where these events often originate there is absolutely NO hate at all.
There is cold calculation. Now there may be many political objectives to this shooting one may be this could be Obama's OKC. You know the tragic event one of Obama's aids said Obama needed to reconnect with the people.
Am I saying Obama or the aid was involved? not at all, not at all.
Obviously we hold a political party resposible for one nut case. And every Christian should be held responsible and heckeled because of westburough baptist, and every Jew should be assailed for what the zionists due. And every person that works at a bank should be treated like they are the douche bag bankers who have helped destroy the economy. If every one above 35 is hell bent on liberal or concervative mcCarthyism maybe you should do us all a favor and go back and re evaluate the decisions you've made during your lives.
Of course this sort of thing can help tip someone like this guy over the edge, and he would go over in the direction where he's hearing all of this crap directed--towar d the Democrats, liberals, the administration. There's no question that most of it's from the right. All you have to do is sit down and add up the mad rhetoric from the right and from the left (giving weight to things like urging the killing of someone, for example). Someone needs to do it and stop this crap that the anger is "balanced."
slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!
40% of the colonists DID NOT support the Revolution and were dispossed and exiled to Canada.
Dissident Presbyterian Scots Irish etc. supported the Revolution because they were denied full citizenship for not being Anglican AND because George the third kept his treaty promise of 1760 to bar white settlement past the Appalachians.(t hey wanted free land)
This nation was born in the original sin of human slavery and genocide of what we call American Indians.
As to the hate of calling government "Tyranny" because you disagree-rememb er Lincoln's Words"If you do acheive your Confederacy,wha t happens the first time the majority votes for something a minority doesn't wish to accept?"
He portrayed the Balkanization and inevitable self destruction that would result.
Canada didn't revolt and has resisted our aggression six times,or is Canada now subject to "Tyranny"
slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!quote]
Actually, they rebelled so that they could keep their MONEY. They realized that the only way to not give up their money (since they had no voice in Parliament and were being brutalized by Lord North) was to rebel. Thus, they rebelled, and their debts to the crown (and Bank of England) were elminated... then they could get back to the task of making money for themselves.
IF your reference is correct, you still cannot use one "ruling" as the sole justification/m otivation for the American revolution. There are better, less PC agenda driven, examples. Besides your criticism of the founders is intentionally unfair, by applying your socially constructed morality to these men who were, to some degree, a product of their time. None of these men have been documented mistreating their slaves, in fact the opposite. Furthermore, you can dispense with Lincoln quotes since he did not really care for the slaves. Even the shill Noam Chomsky argues quite correctly that slaves in the south were usually treated better than factory slaves in the industrial north.
"slavemasters Washington,Jeff erson,Madison,F ranklin,etc. rebelled to avoid giving up their slaves!"
More propaganda, and factually incorrect.
"This nation was born in the original sin of human slavery and genocide of what we call American Indians."
I'm sorry but this nation was founded on political systems and ideals of Greeks, Romans and the renaissance.
The Greek and Roman elites all had slaves, as did the "Founding Fathers." Of course they set up the US system to protect their wealth and the existing social order of domination. They just wanted to do the dominating themselves. But do you blame them? Wouldn't you do the same in their place?
Had Obamacare been voluntary with no enforcement provisions, then nobody should get their panties in a bunch. However if a person chooses to ignore the unconstitutiona l and illegal government edicts, you can be assured that men with guns will show up at your home and perform acts of violence against you. The Tucson shootings are unjustified fur sure, however never lose sight of the biggest criminal enterprise in the country, the US government.
Anybody who is not willing to fight the acts of criminals (government officials) does not deserve freedom.
Remember that over 90% of E V E R Y T H I N G the US government does is without constitutional authority and is therefore illegal.
Get it straight, guys?
[He certainly is a Holocaust denier, and much else besides - he's a fascist - part of the problem.]
I think Mr. Rivero is more of a holocaust investigator rather than a holocaust denier. A "denier" is one that states that a (the) holocaust never happened. I don't think Mr. Rivero falls into that category at all, based on what is on his website. He is certainly one that questions the "extent" of the holocaust (the numbers), and possibly the methods, but he does not question whether or not it actually happened.
It is one thing to say, "Only 3.5 million Jews died under Nazi Germany," and another thing entirely to say, "The Holocaust never happened at all."
Please do not brandish ad hominem attacks, especially when addressing such a sensitive subject.
Because of the Iraq nuke claim, we all understand that our government will lie to us about very important matters. There is nothing new in this; governments have lied to their own people going back to when Ramses II carved his temples to proclaim his victory over the Hittites at Kadesh, a victory which did not actually happen. So, the lesson carved in stone from thousands of years ago is that leaders BS their own people and we should not expect otherwise. We understand Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and was not a threat to the US, we understand (via Allan Greenspan's video confession at Jekyll Island) that fraud and criminality pervade Wall Street, we understand that clergy molest children, and we understand that truth is always the first casualty of war.
Given this experience, prudence and common sense demands that we always re-examine everything we have ever been taught by the media and the state-controlle d school system, to guard against the next Ramses or the next George Bush.
Thanks to Congress forcing managed care (HMOs) on us in the 70s, prices have skyrocketed & service/treatme nt has declined. People don't have much choice, either, and they are not always happy with the care forced on them.
Long before that, we were on much more of a "profit-motive" basis (ie free market - not wholly, but much moreso than before or since).
Costs were affordable, doctors had to compete somewhat & focus on being "better" because patients had the choice to, and could afford to, go anywhere they wanted for treatment. Additionally, without all the bureaucratic red tape they could actually negotiate with low-income patients too.
One of the delusions of recent decades is that we have a "free market" system. For most all of the areas of the "market", that hasn't been true for a long, long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9o-9LKvSQ
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6412474n
Think about it.
When a business offers a product or service, if Customers agree with it, including the price and all aspects of the product/service , the business will do well. They will have lots of repeat and new Customers, which means lots of profit. In a true free market, that's exactly what happens.
If the product or service is not good, or is overpriced, or for whatever reason the Customers don't want to pay for it, the business will not do well. The business will eventually fail & be forced to close or change its ways/prices or whatever conditions caused failure.
Same goes for companies who do wrong to the public, the environment, to its Customers or whomever. So long as they are held liable, it will be Customers who decide if that business will succeed.
Common sense. Free market at work.
We the People (Customers) decide if a product/service is worth price, and so in effect We the People decide if a business prospers... or fails.
However, I FULLY support our military personnel's right to have 100% of their healthcare bills covered, regardless of how/when/why.
The reason I am against any government sponsored/paid for healthcare in general is because it is just plain wrong to force one person to pay for another person's needs (or wants).
Why can't individuals choose where their money goes? Why can't I choose to give that money to my neighbor who is left with 3 little kids after her husband was killed in a car accident? Or to a friend suffering from another serious disease? Why MUST I send my money to a stranger instead of to my own neighbors, whose needs may even be greater?
Whose right is it to decide where MY money gets spent?
Speaking of hate, perhaps the incessant reference to tea party advocates as "tea baggers" or the constant belittlement and beratement of ones political philosophy and character acted to antagonize the shooter, if infact Mr. Loughner is affiliated with the Tea Party.
Those inclined to hyperbolic hypocrisy feel the need to ignore any culpability of any provocations on their part and stubbornly push forward with the myopic agenda to further a double standard in their favor. They say we should now censor dissident rhetoric, and strip the plebeians of their ability to protect themselves. One act has trumped the wisdom drawn from historical pattern.
The deterrent of acts of violence should come in the form of repercussion, not in preemptive measures to silence dissent. Ideas are not criminal, acting upon them in a way inconsistent with ones recognized natural rights constitutes the crime.
What we have here is incipient neo-fascist twisting of the meaning of democracy and tyranny,
The rightwing noise machine is inherently anti-democracy.
This is how local antiwar activists in Tucson have viewed Gabrielle Giffords (and her political machine) in the past. We offer our condolences for those who have died, those who were injured, and their families who are left to deal with the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. The fact is there was a lot of opposition to Gifford's stance regarding the wars, torture and rendition, the patriot act and impeachment of the Bush administration. This opposition had no specific party affiliation.
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-faced-opposition.html
----------------
January 10, 2011 02:10 PM EST
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church are picketing the funerals of those killed during the recent Arizona shootings in the outfit's latest heartless attempt to gain publicity and exposure.
Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, pledged that he and his anti-gay cohorts would be protesting the funerals in Arizona on Monday, according to a USA Today report. The church has spent most of its time in the limelight protesting the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a disgusting display, Phelps is seen in an online video touting the "marvelous work in Tucson," according to the USA Today report. Phelps believes the work is part of "God's vengeance" on America, and he prays for "more shooters ... more dead."
It's mind-blowing that people like these exist. To believe in God is one's right, certainly; but to believe the senseless deaths of others, the sons and daughters of people we all walk with on a daily basis, is in any way uplifting is sick and twisted.
----------------
Othermother, can't his victims simply claim temporary insanity and/or emotional stress? That's not unreasonable.
This is just complete b.s.!
It looks like the USA has the same problems as Australia re the mentally ill. No we can’t spend money on idiots! Ignore them and they will go away. Lets not ensure that seriously delusional persons are cared for in a proper way. The cost to the community of a seriously walking in the street mentally ill person is huge, from fractured relationships, unnecessary disruptions to the family, local society and even murder is huge.
Support is needed for the circle of family and friends/acquitt ances who are affected by such persons. I am speaking from close observations of such a person.
Unfortunately the high level of individualism expressed by many in this blog suggests that the only satisfactory solution is to be armed so that one can repel with lethal force if needed, any unwanted attention form such a person.
When we take from government, we lose our freedom to choose.
Check out some of Dr. Abram Hoffer's writings(he was the head of the Canadian Psychiatric Assoc years ago)
1) Beware of anyone who uses the term, "wacko conspiracy theories". Where have we heard that before? (Hint: Bush and the mainstream media)
2) There's something suss about the EXTENT to which the media is emphasizing and promoting political hate around this incident. And there's something suss about the number of obvious shills who are doing the same in comments sections of news reports on the media. Sure, we could expect some politically divisive comments, but to this extent? Who benefits from having such a divided population? And why isn't the obvious point, that Loughner was paranoid schizophrenic, being given so little attention? I personally suspect that he was yet another victim of ssri drugs. See "ssri stories" on the internet.
3) I've had personal experience with someone whose mind deteriorated as a result of ssri drugs. (Yes, I'm convinced he would not have deteriorated to the extent he did if he had never used them.) People like that are very GULLIBLE and EASILY MANIPULATED.
A young, insecure, Jared Loughner volunteers for said congresswoman's election campaign is fall of 2010. A pseudo relationship develops that Jared PERCEIVES as romantic. Giffords gets elected and off to DC in a fancy jet and fancy clothes, abandoning Jared to Tucson for good. Finally, when she comes back to town, Jared wants to confront her publicly about their "relationship" at 10 am the Saturday morning of her public appearance. Jared waits in line only to see the good Judge push his way straight through the mass and delivers a "kiss" hello to Giffords. Jared becomes enraged, marches up to the front of the line, shoots the judge first, then her and continues to fire. He goes to reload, saving one for himself and deliver the final blow but is tackled and pinned by a brave crowd.
Just for a moment, suspend your conclusions and consider that a crime of passion (in his mind) could have taken place and politics had nothing to do with it.
I dont have the answer to every possible question on this illegal event. I would guess that Jared brought a Glock 19 shooting 9mm ammo and at least two 33 round magazines because SOMEONE helped him buy the gun, premeditate the event leading up to causing panic and DROVE HIM TO THE EVENT. FIND the 50 year old subject of interest and all your answers will be uncovered. But please tell me what you dont understand about the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? When every citizen is armed, it is a peaceful society. Gun control ONLY gives criminals and outlaws an upper hand (and guns). This scenario would not have gotten this far (Jared probably would have LEFT) if other citizens open carried. As a matter of fact, an armed citizen, Joe Zamudio, was in the supermarket, heard the shots and DID NOT draw his arm BECAUSE Jared was already tackled by time he got to him. The answer to preventing these future events is not restricting guns but to get every law abiding citizen training and ownership of a gun they carry on their person at all times. Furthermore, police cannot STOP crime, but they can show up and make a report. Citizens can stop crime and make it run.
But what don't you understand about the simple words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Again, if every LAW ABIDING CITIZEN was armed at that event, this would have never happened. Criminals prey on the weak and weak minded. What your questions are suggesting follows the plot of "Minority Report". That somehow there is some secret code or clue or behavior that indicates that a person will do some crime in the future. Meyer-Briggs and similar tests of the like have never worked to predict crimes nor should we trust such gauges. Gun rights are not the issue. You're trying to solve an ancient problem: "crime" by removing a modern tool of protection. Jared could have mowed down the crowd with a car, could have used a crossbow, or sprayed them with gasoline. Why do you think making laws about guns will stop crime?
Does a 90 lb. woman have a fair fight with a 250 lb. man? No, never, but if the man thinks he might be shot/killed, civility will follow, it's the law of nature. Predators prey on the weak, docile and cripples of the herd, not the strong. Which one are you?
You have your history of firearms incorrect. The british colonists (soon to be Americans) had been creating muskets with RIFLED BORES and SIGHTS on those MUSKETS before 1750s. The RIFLES of the American REVOLUTION were the modern day equivalent of SNIPERS and ASSAULT RIFLES to the British smooth bore MUSKET. When British Regulars fired their guns, they did not AIM. They TURNED their heads to the side to avoid the smoke to shoot. But the Colonists aimed their guns and specifically hit OFFICERS. Accurate range of a regular's musket was 40-60 yards. Effective range of a rifle bored colonist musket was 200-300 yards. Here is a sample of the fear showed to the regulars:
(c. 1775) "two brothers took a piece of board, five inches broad and seven inches long, with a bit of white paper about the size of a dollar nailed in the center, and while one of them supported this board perpendicularly between his knees, the other at a distance of upwards of sixty yards and without any kind of a rest, shot eight bullets successively through the board, and spared his brother's thighs"
Civilians owned cannons too.
More rifle history at http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/longrifle.html
2A: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
As for 'shall not be infringed', that's perfectly clear, but anyone who's grown up in the US knows that police departments can and do restrict gun licenses based on officers' judgment of the applicant. In the small New York community where I lived years ago, an acquaintance who was refused a license was told (by officers) that pregnant women couldn't get gun licenses because they couldn't be trusted to be rational gun owners. Asinine as this view may be, I don't believe lots of guns would keep the peace. Guns abound in the tribal cultures of Afghanistan, but it's hardly a peaceful place. Of course, there are not many 90-lb women packing heat there, but every family has firearms.
Comparing 2010 Afghanistan or any ME country to 1700s America is an better comparison. Secondly, you ignore how rural living is targeted by criminals since "help" is far away.
As my history lesson demonstrated, America's not too distant past demonstrated the utilitarian and protective needs for multiple types of arms not just the ones LINDA R says are OK. Just because your local community is 100% crime free does not allow you to violate the constitution, the very same document that allows your comments here.
Switzerland is a better comparison of majority rifle ownership to America. Every adult citizen forming part of a militia (militias and reserve/nationa l guards are NOT the same. Members of a militia have NO legal ties to government. Now read 2A again understanding a militia is a collection of free people, not soldiers) is required by law to own and maintain a battle rifle.
But both of you are EVADING my point. Guns are not the only way to kill or maim others. Why don't you spend you time banning bad drivers or finding mentally ill folks that can kill without a license? Firearms are just CONVENIENT for you to label BAD and walk away.
'Militia' has acquired a different set of references in the contemporary USA. I do not know whether the old term 'state militia' has been replaced in every case by 'National Guard', but 'militia' is now often associated with groups whose political agendas have subjected them to surveillance by federal agencies.
Firearms are not a 'convenience'. Friends who were assaulted by addicts have sometimes criticised me for not keeping a pistol in the house, but unless I am prepared to kill or disable someone with it, the chances that it would be taken away from me and stuffed down my throat are unacceptable. I'd rather keep a smart dog and mace the burglar or nut case, though that alternative too is outlawed in a number of states.
I quite agree about identifying people who are mentally unfit to carry arms and have commented elsewhere on RSN on that subject. Several public bodies--the college, the army and at least one Walmart clerk--identifi ed Loughner as a disturbed person, but this didn't quite get through to the point of sale.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...an d include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
As per your question of militia vs military, GIs a property of the govt. while Militia is composed of freemen, free to leave.
if this shooter had a family that cared enough to keep him on a short leash then things might have been different.
bad parenting? part of the mix, along with tv sets and movies that glorify death and destruction.
By the way, the .223 cartrige was developed for varmant hunting (small game), and was adopted by unkle scam for use in the cheap and reliable ar-15 rifle.
Were this guy motivated by political considerations (which I consider to be highly unlikely), it is more probable that he targeted a blue dog democrat because she was not progressive enough for his tastes.
There is no evidence that Loughlin was interested in, supportive of, or even heard of the conservatives who are currently being lambasted by the left for generating a climate of hate that "caused" the young man to go berserk.
Krugman and his ilk appear to be setting the stage for legislation restricting free political speech. Don't let us be stampeded by fear into such a loss of basic human rights.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Who here had nice parents and was brought up to be a good citizen, solving problems, not making them?
Two Wrongs don't make a Right
Count to 10 before Taking Action
Love They Neigbhor as Theyself
The Road to Hell is Paved with 'good' (or at least reactive) Intentions
Stupid is as Stupid Does.
Yes, the 2nd Estate (today's corp. media) is letting us down, to say the least. But that's no excuse for poor individual behavior, be it in the form of violence or gun-grabbing.
the shooters family and the reps family belong to the same small synagog
they knew each other
"Loughner's mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.**"
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=2
Then a link to Ron Kampeas of JTA.org (a jewish news service) says the evidence does not indicate Amy Loughner jewish but adds "Loughner's family was in no way Jewish [observing?], nor was his mother -- but she might have mentioned her Jewish grandfather, beloved enough to live on in her brother's name, with pride or interest. Under those circumstances Loughner, who sought "chaos" according to Tierney, might have sought to provoke his mother and his uncle by pretending to admire (or actually admiring) Adolph Hitler. He might have told Tierney that his mother was Jewish as a shorthand, or might have seen her as Jewish -- like I said, not the most reliable reporter. Or he might have explained the lineage, and Tierney might understandably have conflated it as "mother Jewish." "
None of us is safer than the drunkest driver, or the unvaccinated child, the person with no medical insurance, or the person with violent ideation who receives no help. Our wealth is no greater than the level of integrity of the accountants pushing bottom-line-fir st economics. Our freedom of speech is only as free as our monopolized media. Our government's rulings have the same integrity as our most lawless lobbyist and politicians. We are all as foolish as the child who can't learn because he is hungry, ill, or lacks people and language skills.
OK guys, here's the deal. I see an incredible amount of energy being spent in a attempt to demonize one party or the other. The fact of the matter is that in the back rooms of congress there's only one party and you ain"t invited.
The tactic being used is at least as old as The Art of War. It's called divide and conquer and it's working fabulously as far as I can tell.
None of this is a left/right thing, it's a liberty/slavery thing. As long as you debate the left and right, guess where you end up in the liberty/slavery paradigm? Yep, chattel bait.
The only debate that requires addressing is whether or not it's moral for a service to be provided at the point of a gun.
The answer to that question will separate the wheat from the chaff and lead to a discussion of what liberty is and how it may be achieved.
A debate between mis- or uninformed parties is entertaining in that statements are made which are so beyond the pale as to be laughable.
There are people posting here who would argue that deaths pursuant to their yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater was the result of the decedents being too slow.
Gimmeabreak.
We've all heard "pundints" [sic], friends and acquaintances calmly parrot the statement that the Tucson shooting had nothing to do with anything. Neville Chamberlain is an archetype and we seem determined to rehydrate it like children who believe that the blanket will protect them against the monster in the room.
I do not require the government to "care"; it cannot be my mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter--or my keeper, either--but I do want it to work. And if I spent my life watching reality t.v. I wouldn't be writing here.
You are entirely too proud of being a prophet of doom.
RSS feed for comments to this post