Gunning down of Giffords

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm surprised that this has not been mentioned in the GF to date. Has the loss of a bi-partisanship climate seemingly replaced by hate filled (or at least implied) rhetoric been the catalyst for this sort of tragedy?

It was interesting to note this apparent quote from Gifford regarding Sarah Palin's portrayal of the gunned down politicians electorate. Palin declared Giffords a "target." Giffords' district office was subsequently vandalized, and the congresswoman noted that Palin had put "the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district."

"When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said. More prophetic words have never been spoken.

Here's a link to an article on the event. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html

Regards

KR

[dieseltaylor]

It is hard for us outside of the US to understand the level of political "debate" that goes on there. I browse quite a lot of American sites and it is rather disturbing, to say the least, as to what is written and the general polarisation of the country.

This might be a little misleading as obviously the huge majority of Americans do not write on the Net. However bearing in mind Fox's viewing figures and the quality of information and it does reinforce the idea of warring sides.

There are two things for sure :

Two party systems are likely to lead to polarisation

The "people" know they have been stiffed by Wall St. and the politicians

I have a certain degree of sympathy for the original Tea Party however it has been subsumed by the Republicans. It is easy when "Your either for us or against us." is the gut reaction of a lot of Americans.

I always find it vaguely depressing that the US constitution borrowed so heavily from the Roman Republic.

Final Analysis of the Republic’s Collapse

The republic of Rome died not because it was inefficient, but because the leaders behind that system had been corrupted and blinded by greed and glory. The very people they were meant to serve they exploited and in the end, those very people turned against them resulting in the republic’s ultimate collapse. This should be a very important lesson for anyone about the dangers of greed and excess at the expense of others.

Read more at Suite101: The Fall of the Roman Republic: An Independent Analysis of the Events Causing the Republic's Demise http://www.suite101.com/content/the-fall-of-the-roman-republic-a114405#ixzz1AdkVzwAK

[abneo3sierra]

Just a real quick non-political note here...the gunner in this case, was actually,politically on the same side as the victims were, just perhaps quite a bit "further out there" on that side...any attempts to link to "Tea Party" "Palin" or anything else the news media is trying, is quite off base,and blatantly political.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Nah, from what I've read he started out as leaning towards Democratic views but not very much so. But if you've seen his vids you know that much of what he said since he lost his marbles was along Tea Party lines.

But having said that, people trying to tie others directly to this happening is unjust and unhelpful. The kid is a clear lunatic. Did the crazy, crazy rhetoric help? Clearly not. But Dems trying to claim Palin caused this to happen are only adding to craziness. If they want to help, they need to calm the fvck down because politicians trying to tar the other side as evil is the problem. That and obvious lunatics with guns.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But Dems trying to claim Palin caused this to happen are only adding to craziness. If they want to help, they need to calm the fvck down because politicians trying to tar the other side as evil is the problem. That and obvious lunatics with guns.

QFT

When I see people trying to tie this loser's actions to Sarah Palin or the Republicans or the Democrats I see someone reading into it what they want to see. That sheds more light on their own political beliefs than it does on this event.

[abneo3sierra]

QFT

When I see people trying to tie this loser's actions to Sarah Palin or the Republicans or the Democrats I see someone reading into it what they want to see. That sheds more light on their own political beliefs than it does on this event.

Exactly how I feel. It is the same as when there were school shootings, and people tried to link the kids' musical preferences as partially to blame...whichever way he leaned, he was crazy, it is not the fault of either side, to have crazy people thinking crazy things.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

QFT

When I see people trying to tie this loser's actions to Sarah Palin or the Republicans or the Democrats I see someone reading into it what they want to see. That sheds more light on their own political beliefs than it does on this event.

You say this and yet Giffords herself stated at the time of the 'target' marketing by Palin the following...When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to say that what has transpired could well be the consequence of that action. Nut jobs are prone to be easily led by simplistic images and when a target is painted on a politician of an opposition party then bad things can occur.

Are there no advertising regulations in the States that specifically state that posting images or text that could incite violence is banned, with some sort of hefty penalty if ignored?

Regards

KR

[Vanir Ausf B]

It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to say that what has transpired could well be the consequence of that action. Nut jobs are prone to be easily led by simplistic images and when a target is painted on a politician of an opposition party then bad things can occur.

Without any evidence that this guy was inspired by Sarah Palin what you are saying is purely speculative. So if there is no evidence that he was inspired by Sarah Palin, then what is your motivation for speculating that it "could well be" connected to her? As I said before, this says more about your own political views than it does about this incident, or Sarah Palin for that matter.

Are there no advertising regulations in the States that specifically state that posting images or text that could incite violence is banned, with some sort of hefty penalty if ignored?

Not that I'm aware of. Almost anything could incite violence in someone, somewhere. You can't threaten to kill someone, however.

[dumrox]

It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to say that what has transpired could well be the consequence of that action. Nut jobs are prone to be easily led by simplistic images and when a target is painted on a politician of an opposition party then bad things can occur.

Perhaps it was inspired by a well known US politician who stated in 2008 that “If they [the political opposition] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

Perhaps it was caused by a well known US partisan political website adding Giffords to their "target list" as one who "sold out the Constitution", bolding her name and selected others for their political views.

Perhaps it was triggered by the same website publishing an online letter just 2 days prior to the shooting under a headline that read in part, "My CongressWOMAN ... is now DEAD to me!", referring to Giffords.

[costard]

Assassins don't take out bystanders; crazies do.

For what it's worth, I doubt Palin understands any possibility of a link between her rhetoric and the interpretation made by the crazy. Which is pretty scary given that she wants to be President.

Final Analysis of the Republic’s Collapse

The republic of Rome died not because it was inefficient, but because the leaders behind that system had been corrupted and blinded by greed and glory. The very people they were meant to serve they exploited and in the end, those very people turned against them resulting in the republic’s ultimate collapse. This should be a very important lesson for anyone about the dangers of greed and excess at the expense of others.

Yep, it's about leadership: you have to set an example that you want followed. If you don't have the capacity to understand this, you won't be in a position of leadership for long.

[abneo3sierra]

The continued attempts here to link to either political side are wrong...the guy was crazy. And just as much exists to link him to either political side. In case someone hasn't noticed, the quoted congresswoman above (who said "she is dead to me") was the Democratic Speaker of the House after the victim voted against her as House Speaker. The victim was a centrist Democrat,and just as much in the shooter's rhetoric suggests he was angry she was in the center. Everything about him was against the side Palin is on as well.

I think that the rhetoric on both sides has gone way too far. During Bush's presidency,there were quite many people who openly wished ill to him,and no one said anything about it. There is a poster here (the original poster) who uses as his signature an insult to one (former)politician,while suggesting that something should be done to "hush up" ill talk of other politicians.

In short, I can understand why political posts are not allowed on here...as a serving officer, both sides have annoyed me at times. Politics on either side are dirty,grimy,awful. And one of the most awful, is here, before bodies have even been buried, for the one side to try to score political points against the other. Have some respect.

Just my 2 cents.

Ron

[dieseltaylor]

Is there a fundamental problem now in the US that the two parties and their supporters are locked into a vicious fight. Either side will do anything to get their hands on the levers of power and vilifying fellow Americans is now embedded practice.

I realy have a problem on seeing the US become more accepting/moderate from here on in. Short of being attacked by another power. And why would anyone bother?

[abneo3sierra]

Sadly,Diesel, that's even pretty much how I see it. I have read alot on how public discourse went in the years leading up to the American Civil War,and sometimes it is frightening in the similarities,when neither side admits ANY good from their opponents, and every single item of news,etc...is quickly grabbed by one side against the other. Already don't trust news media anymore because both sides have made it their mission to move their agenda forward, and so it is sad in many ways.

[Other Means]

Curtailing the powers of Rupert Murdock would be a start. Possibly the most evil man to walk the planet.

[mike_the_wino]

...But having said that, people trying to tie others directly to this happening is unjust and unhelpful. The kid is a clear lunatic....But Dems trying to claim Palin caused this to happen are only adding to craziness. If they want to help, they need to calm the fvck down because politicians trying to tar the other side as evil is the problem. That and obvious lunatics with guns.

For damn furhner, you make some good points.

[abneo3sierra]

Curtailing the powers of Rupert Murdock would be a start. Possibly the most evil man to walk the planet.

If you did that, it would only be fair to curtail the rest of the media as well, since they are on the "other side" usually..oh,wait..there is that freedom of the press thing... never mind.

[MSBoxer]

It is distressing that the first reaction by many was to point fingers and lay blame without any evidence what so ever. Even when friends point out that he was a liberal less than 2 years ago, the narrative remains that he was encouraged to do this by the tea-party and other conservatives.

The only fact we have to operate on is that this is one sick SOB.

We know he was a liberal a few years ago. We also know that he referred to Giffords as fake or phoney and that some of his views could have been considered similar to some far right wing views, or they could also be those of far left anarchist.

Did he shoot Giffords for her refusing to support Pelosi as minority leader? Did he shoot just to show hatred of all government? Did he shoot because of a bullseye on a map?

I have trouble believing any of these were the cause. I think that if they were he would have simply assassinated his target, but shooting 20 people? Insanity is the only cause I can come up with...anything else is just too frightening to contemplate.

[mike_the_wino]

The only fact we have to operate on is that this is one sick SOB.

What he said!

There was an article/ op piece about this terrible event being hijacked by pols on both sides and ignoring the plain fact that this dude was f*cked up in the head. We have an alarming lack of facilities, specialists, hospitals, government programs,etc. to deal with people with these issues. It is this failing which drives, in large part, our homeless issue.

Despite the details of who was shot, with what and the motive(if we will ever know) the bottom line is that this guy needed help and we as a society failed him. The price was paid for by the taxpayers but by those 6 dead and 13 wounded.

[MSBoxer]

There was also a very obvious failing by the local sheriff who was quick to point fingers at the right wing. Yesterday he stated that his office has dealt with this young man in the past in relation to multiple death threats that he made against individuals other than Giffords.

Why the hell was the shooter not put on the list that would have denied him the opportunity to purchase the firearm that he used!

[dieseltaylor]

MSBoxer - apparently Arizona is keen on gun rights to the extent it does not even provide much information to the Federal list [as require] of those banned from purchasing. I make no judgement on that.

The issue of extended magazines is interesting as they were banned for a decade until 2004. It is reasonable to think thta without a 33 round magazine he would have stopped firing sooner and less people may have died. I wonder if that might be an area where the two parties might agree to agree.

[dieseltaylor]

Re the decline of the US and the disenchantment of the people.

This struck me as a bit of a kick in the crutch to open democracy. And raises the question why would someone wish to sabotage it, and why should there be secrecy?

After the lame duck session of Congress ended a few days before Christmas, watchdog groups were disappointed to learn that a bill expanding protections for government whistleblowers died in the Senate.

The bill was a product of a 12-year lobbying effort [1] and had bipartisan support. An earlier form of it had passed the Senate unanimously, and it passed in the House after undergoing some changes. When the bill went back to the Senate for a final vote, a lone senator [2] put an anonymous hold on the bill, effectively killing it. Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project explains how the manuever worked [2]:

A hold is like a passive filibuster of one. It can be removed only through the same process to defeat a filibuster: 60 votes along with days of procedural hurdles that paralyze all Senate business. While theoretically the secret senator must come out after six days, that rule is no help at session's end.

Now, WNYC’s On the Media—together with the Government Accountability Project—is trying to find out who killed the bill, and they’re calling on folks to contact their Senators to ask [3].

The killed bill had already had some protections removed, after some House Republicans—among them, Rep. Darrell Issa, who’d previously supported the bill—had raised concerns [4]that the bill would help WikiLeaks and enable disclosures of classified information.

Watchdog groups had argued that such concerns were unfounded [5]. The bill strengthened protection for federal workers who report fraud and abuse through legal channels. Without such protections, whistleblowers wary of retaliation would be more likely [6] to go to outside organizations such as WikiLeaks, Devine told On the Media.

Devine also noted that under previous administrations, whistleblower protection legislation had been defeated [7] on the basis that the Justice Department opposed the measure. The Obama administration, however, has stated its support for the bill [8], eliminating one reason traditionally given by opponents.

So the question remains: Who’s the lone senator? If you’re as curious as we are, check out [3] the crowdsourcing effort and consider sending your Senator a quick email.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What does that have to do with the Giffords shooting? Make a separate Decline and Fall of the United States thread, or somefink.

[dieseltaylor]

and the disenchantment of the people.

Actually you are right the killer probably had no reason to feel paissed-off and it was a random act and my seeking causes for extreme action is not necessary.

A separate thread might be appropriate on the state of the nation but in my twisted mind I thought that the killings were sparked by something. There are massacres in the US but political attacks I thought were very rare. Saying he was a nut leads to the question why Gifford? And how many nuts in the US.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html

Anyway I am sure the media will have at it for weeks to come shedding heat but not light. Its a very sad horrible episode.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Why Gifford? One thing about her that may make her unique from his perspective is that he had interacted with her in person. She visited a college he was attending at the time and held a Q&A session that he attended. According to people who were there he asked her a nonsensical question that she answered in a way that he didn't like.

[dieseltaylor]

Ah!, thanks for that. Looks very logical then. Unpowerful attacking a perceived powerful but even moreso because she was an attractive woman unattainable by him.