Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Tale of Two Sheriffs
The Tucson massacre that left six dead and 14 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, brought into sharp public focus the local sheriff, Clarence Dupnik. He's been the sheriff of Pima County, which includes Tucson, Arizona's second-largest city, for 30 years. For the 20 years before that, he was a police officer. Dupnik has gained attention this week for linking the shooting to the vitriolic political climate in the U.S., and in particular, Arizona.
Speaking at a press conference shortly after the shooting, Sheriff Dupnik said: "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Arizona is one of three states in the country that allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. When asked about the law, the sheriff was emphatic: "We are the Tombstone of the United States of America.... I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state carry weapons under any circumstances that they want. And that's almost where we are." He also decried a proposed Arizona bill that would allow students and professors to carry guns on campus.
The suspected shooter, 22-year-old Jared Loughner, by most accounts suffers from some form of mental illness. Yet he was able to buy a semi-automatic pistol, along with extended-capacity magazines to hold more bullets. He bought the bullets the same morning as the attack.
When I interviewed Dupnik, he called Arizona's gun laws "insane," and reaffirmed the link he made between political rhetoric and the shooting: "I think that there are a lot of people in the radio industry, especially, and some in the TV industry, who make millions of dollars off of inflaming the public, purveying hate against the government, and distrust. In my judgment, people who are mentally unstable are very susceptible to the kind of rhetoric that's going on in our country."
One of those whose rhetoric has attracted attention is Sarah Palin. She published a map of the United States on her political action committee's website that listed 20 congressional seats held by Democrats whom she was "targeting" in the 2010 elections, including Gabrielle Giffords. The map marked each district with the cross hairs of a gun. More controversially, she linked to the cross hairs map through a tweet that read, "Don't Retreat, Instead-RELOAD!"
Giffords spoke directly to Palin's use of the cross hairs when they first appeared, noting that "When people do that ... there are consequences to that action." Giffords' opponent in the midterm elections, the tea-party-backed Iraq veteran Jesse Kelly, held an event advertised with the words: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
As Giffords' father rushed to her hospital bedside, he was asked if she had any enemies. "Yeah," he said, "The whole tea party."
As direct and offensive as Palin's campaign was, it was a small part of the political vitriol that has consumed Arizona in recent years. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer gained national notoriety when she signed into law the controversial immigration bill SB 1070, which Dupnik fiercely opposed: "Every Hispanic in this country, especially in Arizona, must have awakened the next day to feel like they've been kicked in the teeth, like they are now second-class citizens, they have a target on their back, because when they leave the house, they're going to have to take papers with them and prepare to be stopped and questioned."
Contrast Dupnik with the sheriff of nearby Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio. He is notorious for the harsh conditions in which he jails people, using canvas tents in the searing summer heat. He has pledged to expand his tent city to accommodate the expected influx of detained immigrants. He is the subject of a U.S. Justice Department federal civil-rights lawsuit focusing on his treatment of prisoners and immigrants, and on abuse of power.
The Arizona Republic reports that Jared Loughner, charged in federal court for the murders and attacks, normally would have been remanded to the Maricopa County Jail, but "given the high profile of the case and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's penchant for publicity, they moved Loughner instead to [a] federal facility."
As the country unites against the terror in Tucson, let's take the targets off the backs of all innocent civilians, and hope the humanity of Sheriff Dupnik prevails over the cruel vitriol of Arpaio and his ilk.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
89 Comments so far
Show AllThanks, Amy. As usual, you are right on. And your interview with the Tucson sheriff on DN was very heartening. As a former resident of Tucson, I am heartened to see that there are some level-headed leaders in that city.
rosie2731
"reaffirmed the link he made between political rhetoric and the shooting"
He's wrong though. The correct link is to violent video games.
We should look at the violence that the usa is forcing on the people of Afghanistan.
The sheeple in the usa have for the most part lost contact with reality..
They see the crap on television as real, they are not shown the reality of violence in the middle east or where ever the empire decides to force the next Kentucky fried chicken place upon a 5000 year old culture. Then when a small sample of the violence we are forcing upon the world comes into focus with a local event they seem surprised.
I agree it could be all that too. And rap lyrics.
Rap lyrics are frequently offensive and promote violence but they originated in an oppressed minority community who, despite constitutional amendments, are still systemically discriminated against by the establishment.
The white-male-authoritarian-demagogic right wing who spout so much hate and vitriol have no such excuse. For all intents and purposes, they already control everything in the United States.
" promote violence "
Yes they do. That they originated as they did doesn't change that.
I'm black by the way.
Yes, it does "change that."
A master killing people if they try to escape is not "equal" to an escaping slave responding in kind in an effort to free themselves. Trying to convince people that the two are the same is morally depraved.
There is no equivalence here. "Just ignore the systematic oppression and the power imbalance and pretend we are all equal and judge people upon that basis" promotes and perpetuates racism.
"A master killing people if they try to escape is not "equal" to an escaping slave responding in kind in an effort to free themselves."
Fast forward to 2011 TA. Rappers are not slaves. And the issue is violence, not whether you think violence promoted by rappers in 2011 is somehow justified. Try to stay focused.
It is an analogy. I am sure you have heard of those.
You may not think that any sort of power imbalances exist today, and so therefore no sorts of analogies to power imbalances and injustice from the past are applicable. Fine. Defend that position instead of playing games. You can't defend that position, is my guess. So you play games.
"It is an analogy."
I suppose you may have meant it as such but masters and slaves is completely irrelevant to whether provocative violent lyrics in rap songs are provocative and violent.
"I am sure you have heard of those."
Just as I am sure you have heard of metaphors.
"You may not think that any sort of power imbalances exist today, and so therefore no sorts of analogies to power imbalances and injustice from the past are applicable."
You need to go to the target range and sight in your weapon, because you keep missing the bull’s eye. The issue was whether violent lyrics are violent or not.
"playing games"
It is you playing games by *changing the subject* from whether violent lyrics are violent to slavery and other sorts of power imbalances. Were that the subject at hand, I am sure you and I would agree on much.
Huh?
No, the issue is not whatever you decide it is.
You say "but masters and slaves is completely irrelevant to whether provocative violent lyrics in rap songs are provocative and violent." Right, I didn't claim otherwise. I said there was no equivalence and used an analogy to illustrate why that is the case.
"No, the issue is not whatever you decide it is."
Please go back to your post "Two Americas January 12th, 2011 5:02 pm" and explain what you had in mind. The discussion was about provocative and violent rap lyrics. It looks like the issue is what you decided it to be, by not addressing what was going on then. We were not discussing slavery, and there was no applicable analogy by your bringing that up.
"I said there was no equivalence"
Equivalence between what and what else? I have no idea what this is referring to.
Question -
Do you sincerely think that I said "rappers are slaves?" Hard to imagine. You are smarter than that. It is a debate trick, an intentionally dishonest one.
"Do you sincerely think that I said "rappers are slaves?" "
Are you trying to smear me now with this question? :-) No. By discussing masters and slaves when the subject was violent provocations in the lyrics of modern rappers made me think that you had lost all focus. My statements were designed to point this out. You need adjust your aim so that you can better hit your target.
The US gov't establishes the template of the resolution of disagreements by violent action.
Well it's more about the general arrogant, self-centred obsession with simple solutions and violence in general, which is reflected not just in entertainment media, but almost all of mass communication and, increasingly, education. Violent video games are just a part of it, but I believe that disgusting shit like the vomitous Call of Duty recruitement tool series (which is the single most popular console video game in America) does have a bad effect.
But overall, it's all about a basic set of ideas getting purer and purer manifestations in every type of mass communication. Replace compassion and empathy with TV series emotions, community with patriotism, knowledge with top ten lists, food with McDonalds, work with wage slavery, social behaviour with military hieararchy and personal thoughts with media manufactured memes. Every single form of media is part of this. A lot of these ideas boil down to idealising a centralised, undemocratic, fascist, military world, lead by a "vanguard" of generally "better" people, without democratic control, all in the name of some strict, "real world" goal or threat like "the economy" or "terrorism" or "crime" or "drugs": these are supposed to be real issues whose solutions demand sacrifices because "that's how the world works". We have to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them at home, because, you know, *someone* has to be killed, it's inevitable - it's either a bunch of Afghan villagers or you! And of course nothing else besides sacrifices from and control of the many works, definitely not empathy, understanding or rationality. Everyone knows the recurring appeals to the harshness of reality and calls to "deal with it", because, obviously, if you think there are other solutions, you're just cheating yourself and can't take it like a man. This is the general response template for not believing that austerity, discipline and giving up rights or wealth or work or whatever you still have some control on is the only solution to all problems ever. You're either "pampered" or have balls, that's the two choices you have: a man or a pussy. Obviously, anyone whose first thought in reaction to any event is not some kind of violence, belongs to the latter group.
The primitive right-wing - often incredibly close to fascist - thinking that America (and the West in general, but mainly, overwhelmingly, the USA) spreads over the entire world with all its "culture products", from video games to TV series to movies, books and the rest, is one of the worse types of pollution Western civilisation has come up with. America has so many incredible people, so much talent and wealth, and the world gets nazi shit like CSI and Call of Duty and 24 and the rest of the propaganda stuff. Everything (with some exaggeration, but sadly not much) oozes this primitive, illogical, malevolent and authoritarian world view, from media to churches, politicians and businessmen. A few people just going crazy (because of this or other reasons) and shooting people is pretty fucking bad enough, but most people are actually accepting these values more and more, and that actually costs millions of lives all over the world.
So you are just guessing too? :-)
Seriously, although I only agree with some of what you have written you obviously put some effort into that so thank you.
Well, yeah. Thing is, it's pretty difficult and expensive to get access to relevant research on the topic of real life effects of violence in media :-/ I'm not really alone with this thinking though (read Giroux or Hedges), and I've been pissed off with the stupid and primitive but immediate and complete denial of any possible negative pedagogic effects of video games (which I happen to love btw...yep, I'm a hypocrite) by gamers.
Here's a not completely bad article on how the "industry" views this issue:
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/war-porn-part-one
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/war-porn-part-two
I mean, this is probably the least retarded more or less mainstream article I've read on this issue (ie. in the "gaming" specialty press), and it's still pretty weak :-) It doesn't mention that there were probably war crimes committed in Fallujah (they're talking about making a video game of the "siege" in the second part) and that you're playing the part of the aggressor in an illegal war etc.
Anyway, I love video games and I hate that increasingly, a lot of the ideology behind them (especially true for the American games) is becoming extreme right wing. I mean, they can be bad enough in themselves, with all the addictivity, decreasing attention span etc issues (read some Ian Bogost or Jonathan Blow's comments on WoW's "immorality"), but in addition to this, a lot of them are just (very high quality) propaganda now.
Thanks again. Not much of a gamer here, I do IT though and a lot of people in the field are into it. I read books on military history. Tactics and strategy and often very interesting stories. I am not sure of any known period of prolonged peace.
Hehe :-) I've been playing since 1983? 4? when I got my first ZX Spectrum :-) I prefer reading social history and cultural history though. Just finished David F. Noble's books (awesome historian, just died a couple of weeks ago :-(((((( ): America by Design, Forces of Production and Religion of Technology, all brilliant books. Seemed like an awesome guy :-(((
As for prolonged peace...well, we didn't *need* it this much any time before this. I don't really believe in some pre-ordained "human nature", I think people are pretty incredibly flexible and our behaviour can be influenced and at worst controlled by the social environment to a large extent, so I'm not sure that we can make predictions based just on the past. But in fact I can only give the standard left-wing answer: maybe our idiocy is indeed in our "nature", no idea, but we know we must transcend that anyway, otherwise we won't even live.
Maybe not in this particular case, but I think the general world view that video games present to children (who play them a lot) really does matter, imo even more than the occasional event of extreme violence, as it leads to more death. I really don't think it's normal that people accept for example the Fallujah video game I mentioned without controversy, just because veterans are involved in it (which is the argument you get most of the time if you try to discuss this issue with other people who like video games).
I think mass media already has a pedagogical effect that's comparable to parents' and easily larger than schools', and this kind of "hidden" set of values (jingoism, nationalism, militarism, anti-intellectualism and in general, the focus on individual actions and individual "evil" as opposed to social trends and processes) are very much integrated into it. The values behind the tales of modern American video games often seem to be the opposite of those of the classical folk tales.
So yeah, violence in games and media in general is probably pretty bad, but I'm not sure it can be directly connected as the main cause to even a single one of these events, while imo the connection is clearer between the values the media is teaching people and the American public and is a foundation on which a lot of political decisions and actions rest. Making the majority of people temporarily accept the attack on Iraq took a lot of effort, and there's basically no meaningful critique of it in "entertainment" etc (because, after all, it's "just entertainment" when the question's about offering actual perspective and not just straight out propaganda).
highkarate, if you check back, would you tell me what nàmàstèé dudèérinos means? i've tried a google search and that comes full circle back to you.
thanks! i pick up a lot of good points as i read these articles and discussions. also, this is a good ground to "grow" my vocabulary.
ATOM: Thank you for a VERY profound post. You tied a lot of significant observations together in a powerful way. I link many of the points you made to the nation's worship of the war god, Mars. This ethos destroys sensitivity and appreciation for life. It depends upon competition, and a dog-eat-dog view of the world.
Someone asked on one of the threads following the awful Arizona event why "we" don't do more to take the hatred out of mass media. That very hatred is a core tool of indoctrination. Without it, citizens would be hard pressed to put on uniforms and aim increasingly heinous weapons at everyday people like themselves. The only difference being one of geography, with all the ethnic, religious, and cultural aspects that go with it.
Jake: Wouldn't a Black person use the upper case letter "B" to designate that status?
I am NOT in favor of video games of any kind. However, the video games in Japan, for instance, are far more violent than ours, and their violent crime rate is insignificant.
Maybe true, but the point is I am just guessing, just like the sheriff. He has no special insights into the motive of the suspect, and no evidence for the same.
I think you're quite wrong about this. Western games, especially modern stuff, have more graphic and realistic violence and they focus a lot more on violence and its graphic aspects too. There are of course Japanese horror games and porn games, and they do have violent and perverted stuff, but they aren't the most widely consumed games in Japan, unlike in America. In America, the best selling games include CoD Black Ops, Assassin's Creed, Halo: Reach, Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption; in Japan, it's New Super Mario Brothers (well it has Goomba stomping), Dragon Quest games, Friends Collection etc. Not saying that some violent games don't sell in Japan, but American tastes are overwhelmingly more violent, less cartoony and more explicit, there's no competition even. Violence seems to be much more niche there. On the other hand, they have a very free copyright enforcement policy on fan made stuff, so you have loads of fan made comics, games etc, some of which are indeed very violent and often pornographic (they seem to have much less problems with sexual stuff in games and cartoons even aimed at tweens...which is also probably not quite right but imo less harmful than the American fascination with violence).
Also, the Japanese entertainment that's popular in the US is often the more violent stuff (like Fist of the North Star or DBZ) so people know more about those. I think the very popular "proxy battle" stuff (Pokemon, Digimon, Yu-Gi-Oh etc etc) is pretty bad too.
Also, the traditional values Japanese games (and generally children's mass media) transmits are very different from American values. They're traditionally much more community focused for one. You very often have protagonists who don't kill on principle. Enemies very often have a deep motivation that the player can identify with. They usually praise hard work as opposed to talent. The list could go on, but the values I listed are there in imo a majority of stuff aimed at young boys. I mean, I'm not trying to say that Japanese popular culture doesn't have a dark side (it does), or that it's good (I like it but there's a lot of crap of course) but overall, I think it compares pretty favourably to the US in a lot of respects, and no, their fascination with violence is imo not as deep and universal as in the US.
On the other hand though, I agree that there's probably no simple direct link between crime and consumption of violent media; I'm just not sure that Japanese children see as much violence in the media as Americans.
Excellent article, but, SADLY, I suspect the words "As the country unites against the terror in Tucson" will fail to be fulfilled.
Thus far, the great majority of response from those who have long promoted exactly this kind of tragedy have been self-congratulatory denial, and, at the head of the "pack" (such an appropriate word) is "Sad Sack Sarah", the first choice of unintellectuals everywhere.
Let the violence live on! More guns, anyone????
Actually, the first response of many people in Arizona seems to have been to buy more guns, in case some sort of restriction might be applied later. Fat chance of that every happening.
It is fascinating to watch the corporate media shifting, en masse, from the political to the psychological, from the important general story to the more manageable (and less threatening) personal one.
Mr. Loughner certainly seems mentally ill, a victim of our under-financed mental health care system, hence more susceptible than most to suggestions of violence from the likes of Palin or Beck. None of us is immune, however. Normal young men are transformed into psychopathic killers every day. The process is called basic training.
Hats off to Sheriff Dupnik for his rare, informed and insightful comments.
This is just too much.
Mr. Loughner is a victim?
Lack of money is the problem?
You need to revisit the definition of victim.
So you are opposed to public spending on health issues?
You need to revisit the definition of "human."
I think you are too illogical for me to bother explaining.
Let's run through the logic.
The first poster said "Mr. Loughner certainly seems mentally ill, a victim of our under-financed mental health care system..."
In other words, anyone with untreated mental illness (or any other sort of illness) is a victim of a health care system that makes treatment and medicine difficult to get. (You may disagree with that, but that is not relevant here.)
You then replied:
Mr. Loughner is a victim?
Lack of money is the problem?
You need to revisit the definition of victim.
Ergo, you do not think that underfunded and difficult to obtain medical care is an issue, and do not agree that untreated people are victims.
So, I then asked if you oppose public spending on health care.
What is illogical about that in your view? The logic is rock solid.
More of the same.
The political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible and it continues.
Uncomfortable with the direction some of the discussions are taking?
Are you not opportunistically inserting your opinions into the discussion yourself?
ok mightymind, let's not think, reason, or connect dots, but instead just watch the chronology of historical events as if they occur out of the blue.
Political opportunism? Merely common sense. Violence in-violence out. By the way, the misuse of the precise Greek word "tragedy" has become so prevalent that it is no longer worth discussing.
Good point about the use of the word tragedy. It should be limited to situations in which someone brings doom upon himself. But the scope of a word changes with time. Recently, (2009) Slavoj Zizek pointed out that Marx's comment about history repeating itself was correct, but Marx left out that it does so "First as Tragedy, then as Farce," which was the title of his recent book.
One wonders how many iterations are required before the repetitions are not even farcical, but become meaningless. I suspect we are far beyond that point because in a few days, something else will dominate the headlines.
If I understand what I'm reading, people think that because Palin and others said the Rep. was a target and used other metaphors that indicated they'd like them killed, that they're guilty when someone hasn't the sanity to simply say "These people are fucking crazy?"
While the large (and unacceptable) incidence of gun injuries is not in dispute, disarming ourselves--particularly at time when the government seems to be getting more in our face with its fascism--hardly is appropriate. In fact, it never is.
I don't shoot, don't hunt and don't own a single firearm. But only someone with blind faith in our clearly militarized police and their "people are the enemy' attitude could think that having no means whatsoever to defend yourself is a good thing.
Canada, Denmark, Switzerland--all well-armed, but with none of our violence problems.
Take care of the people, and they won't feel any need to go on a rampage, whether crazy or not. The crazy ones would be cared for, and the angry ones wouldn't exist.
If it wasn't firearms, it'd be something else, something we hear about every goddamn day. Can anyone else see that the level of self-preservation exercised by the AZ shooter mimics pretty exactly that of a suicide bomber?
Something drove them there. Eliminate that something, and you've created a truly safe world that people want to actually live in, rather than taking the hobnailed boot in the face--
This horrific act is being used to divide and conquer yet again. Any human who believes that there are vast swaths of heavily armed hillbillies just itchin' to whup up on uppity educated liberals may in fact be correct. But educated and ignorant liberals have far more in common with those hillbillies (and tea partiers and loggers and socialists and so on) than they will ever have with the tiny slice of persons who make up the corporate and political class.
In other words, it is not the crazed shooter we must fear. But the tiny slice of folks are counting on it that we do.
"metaphors that indicated they'd like them killed"
Do you really think that's what Palin et al would have "liked"?
No. I don't know what they would "like." I said their words indicated indirectly that this was the case. I don't believe, even if Palin wanted to make someone go out and kill a congressperson with her words, it would amount to a crime.
And it doesn't matter what Palin's intentions were. The incident is being used, I say, to set us against one another. The media is producing lots of op-eds and stories shrieking how this is one side or the other's fault.
I'm saying that's horseshit.
"The incident is being used, I say, to set us against one another. "
Thanks for your clarification, I tend to agree with this.
Nonsense. The mass media is peddling the line that "both sides do it."
The people spouting right wing rhetoric, such as Palin, most definitely want to see people killed - a lot of people.
"The people spouting right wing rhetoric, such as Palin, most definitely want to see people killed - a lot of people."
You are merely guessing. There is no line of reasoning that could possibly lead to this conclusion.
I do not understand what you are saying.
Either you misunderstood what I said, or you are trying to create some sort of artificial controversy.
What is your point? That the right wing is not murderously hateful? OK, they aren't murderously hateful. You win. Happy?
It is so transparently obvious that it is not a serious debating point. Yet you want to debate it... I don't know. Good luck with your life, I guess and best wishes to you is all I have to say.
"Either you misunderstood what I said, or you are trying to create some sort of artificial controversy."
Neither one. I understood perfectly.
"What is your point? That the right wing is not murderously hateful?"
No, the point is that it is *unreasonable* for you to think so. You can only think this way via thought processes other than reasoning, such as guessing. I do not see where that is artificial or controversial.
I would add that there is no wisdom exhibited by the left when they knee jerkingly apply "hate, racism, bigotry, sexism" etc. on the right and then refuse to discuss the issues specifics based on facts and reasoning.
"OK, they aren't murderously hateful. You win. Happy? "
Knock it off.
"It is so transparently obvious"
No, it is not. You seem to be claiming to be able to look into someone's head and heart as to whether they would like to see certain people killed, which you of course cannot do. That only leaves you with facts and reasoning to come to this conclusion in a reasonable way. You cannot do that, and simply claiming that your view is "transparently obvious" does not make it so.
"that it is not a serious debating point."
It is not very sophisticated or nuanced for any side to refuse to debate something that they declare to be obvious. I think you say this because you lack the chops. That's just my guess though. It should be easy for you though, right?
" best wishes to you is all I have to say."
Thank you, assuming you are being honest. And the same to you. I’ll check back though.
It is mysterious to me why you would be so desperately trying to dismiss this or come up with alternative explanations. Talk in private to those who listen to and use the rhetoric from the right wing mouthpieces. They very seriously want to see people harmed or killed. There is a long history of this - carefully couched rhetoric intended to inflame and incite people, and targeting certain people.
I am not talking about what is inside a person's head, what their intentions might be. I am talking about what they say. I am further saying that there is a long and well-documented history of the association between hate rhetoric and hate crimes.
Smart conservatives would drop this attempt at explaining away or dismissing hate speech, or making pathetic efforts to create a false picture of equivalence between the "two sides."
If you do not understand what hate speech is, or want to deny the concept of hate speech then say so.
"It is mysterious to me why you would be so desperately trying to dismiss this or come up with alternative explanations."
In Critical Thinking we allow for alternate reasons that something is the way it is. Check with a scientist on that. A wise person is constantly on guard that their first response may not be the correct one, that they do not apply Selective Thinking or succumb to Confirmation bias but carefully weigh what is in front of them. As for dismissal of something, this stems simply from the lack of evidence to support that thing.
"Talk in private to those who listen to and use the rhetoric from the right wing mouthpieces. They very seriously want to see people harmed or killed. There is a long history of this - carefully couched rhetoric intended to inflame and incite people, and targeting certain people."
Utter fantasy. It's all done in private meetings and conversations. There could not possibly be an *honorable* reason as to why your "enemy" does what he does?
"I am not talking about what is inside a person's head, what their intentions might be. I am talking about what they say."
That's not at all what you said, it's recorded above for all to see. As for what people say, it is not civil of you to allow that people use metaphors and similar devices all the time. Everyone in the "other America" knows that Palin's crosshairs on map districts is not hate speech, just like it wasn't hate speech when Democrats used bull' eyes.
"I am further saying that there is a long and well-documented history of the association between hate rhetoric and hate crimes."
Sure, but it doesn't apply to what happened in Arizona.
"If you do not understand what hate speech is, or want to deny the concept of hate speech then say so."
Neither is true in my case, but crosshairs or bull's eyes on maps aren't hate speech. It's an obvious metaphor to ratchet up the street effort in those districts, fire up the base, try to persuade the independents, etc.
I find it very strange how desperately you are trying to spin this.
This is not (as you imply in your ongoing campaign of deception and insinuations) my "first reaction." Nor is it solely, primarily or even directly associated with the recent events in Arizona.
It is not "utter fantasy" that there are people - those most in admiration of people like Beck - who really do wish to harm us - according to them. I could take you to 4 or 5 local bars tonight and at each I can guarantee that within 15 minutes we will hear people expressing exactly what I am claiming they are expressing. Of course there is no way to know how they "really feel" or what their "true intentions" are. But wjen you hear several people - angry and aggressive - saying that "someone should take Moore out" for example, and then going on to discuss weaponry and rationales for why the target should be "taken out" I am inclined to believe that they are dangerous. When you can hear that exact same conversation again and again,day after day wherever you go, generalizations can legitimately be made - of course. Your mileage may vary, but when we do in fact have escalating hatred and violence and when we do in fact have people celebrating that, promoting that, enjoying that - according to them - then to claim there is no connection seems to me to be either denial or spin.
My case:
- There is much overheated hateful and bigoted language coming from the right wing media mouthpieces and the 15% or so of the population with whom that resonates.
- That is closely associated with actual acts of violence and real people really are harmed or killed.
- It is highly likely that the segment of the population engaging in and promoting hate speech actually do wish to harm the people at whom their hatred is directed, and there is much evidence that supports this.
- There is no equivalence between that general movement coming from the right and anything coming back in response or being promoted by the Left - as a general movement.
- Those engaging in the hatred, and those with whom it resonates, are also highly likely to be supporting the violent actions by the rulers.
- The nit-picking debates you are trying to engage in as to whether or not a cross hair symbol is in and of itself the problem - as though it existed in a vacuum and was not associated with anything else, and about "we can;t prove hat went on inside someone" is nothing but spin and misdirection, as are your attempts at attacking the messenger.
But why do you - an intelligent conservative - want to go to bat for the most extreme and irrational voices in the political mix?
"someone should take Moore out"
So what? Many said it about Bush. It was a constant. Over and over again. They made a movie about his assassination. But we were talking about what a certain former politician wanted, Palin specifically.
“My case:”
"- There is much overheated hateful and bigoted language coming from the right wing media mouthpieces and the 15% or so of the population with whom that resonates."
Opinion. Hard to respond to a generalization like this without specific examples cited. It comes from the left as well of course. Google "bush" and "effigy" for many specific examples. And you must already be aware of some examples cited recently by Ed Schultz, Montel Williams, Chris Matthews, etc.?
BTW, "hatred" cannot be observed. Only behavior can be observed. That any particular behavior stems from hatred is largely a matter of opinion.
"- That is "closely associated" with actual acts of violence and real people really are harmed or killed."
Define "closely associated" and *demonstrate* that it is true. I don't think you can do the latter. In the current case you cannot, but go ahead on any others.
"- It is highly likely that the segment of the population engaging in and promoting hate speech actually do wish to harm the people at whom their hatred is directed,"
Opinion.
" and there is much evidence that supports this."
Show the evidence.
"- There is no equivalence between that general movement coming from the right and anything coming back in response or being promoted by the Left - as a general movement."
I disagree, but the subject was if people specifically wanted this congresswoman to die.
"The nit-picking debates"
I do not call facts and reasoning as the basis for a debate "nit picking".
"whether or not a cross hair symbol is in and of itself the problem - as though it existed in a vacuum and was not associated with anything else,"
Please demonstrate an association of the cross hairs with some other” thing” that definitively changes how we should view that.
You seem to believe all of the things above for the reason that you believe them, and not through any facts and reasoning.
"attacking the messenger."
I have not made a single Ad Hominem argument in this discussion. All I am asking is that you explain a position you took back on "Two Americas January 12th, 2011 4:42 pm" with the statement "The people spouting right wing rhetoric, such as Palin, most definitely want to see people killed " referring to the specific case of the congresswoman. This is not attacking you.
"But why do you - an intelligent conservative"
*blush* I'm not that conservative.
"want to go to bat for"
Not really doing that when i am just asking for you to explain your statements about people desiring people to be killed.
"the most extreme and irrational voices"
And I disagree with the characterization.