No One Said being Responsible was Easy
by Nola
Yesterday, I learned Tulane posted on its listserv that is accessibly by all Tulane employees and students that an employee’s laptop had been stolen over the holidays, and that the computer had on it all, ALL, employee confidential information–name, social security numbers, salary, date of birth, date of hire–for all 2010 employees. And Tulane’s response is to pay for each employee an identity theft protection for a year. No mention of the employee being fired. Or why he had this laptop chuck-full of confidential information not on his person but in his car left unattended.
My response? Total irresponsibility.
WHY was this confidential information on a laptop and not a secure server? How was this laptop allowed to leave the campus? What training did the employee have about leaving this computer in his car? As an attorney, I NEVER leave a file in my car. NEVER. I take work home and stop to eat before I get home? My briefcase comes in with me. Inconvenient but SAFE. Why? Because my clients have entrusted me with confidence in handling their files. It would be irresponsible to toss it in the back seat and assume it will be safe.
The shooting of Congresswoman Giffords strikes the same chord with me. At this moment, we don’t know the motive of the shooter. It may end up being some jealous ex-boyfriend. But it doesn’t change the climate of irresponsibility that is atwitter over gun-rights-folks ala Sarah Palin right now.
It is irresponsible to advocate for gun rights, to tout, “Don’t retreat, reload;” to promote guns being carried at political gatherings and then to go silent when a politician is shot up at just such a political gathering. It is irresponsible to suggest that what is best offered in such a case is prayer. I am watching Fox to understand the Right’s position now. That is where this talk of prayer was addressed. Otherwise, the Right sees this a just another tragedy.
The focus of Fox’s Right guests seems to be on whether higher safety measures will be put in place in the future. How very non-self-reflective of them.
I am told I am jumping to conclusions not even knowing if a gun-toting anti-Democrat was the shooter or what his motive was. I am writing this now before that motive is known to make the point that even NOT knowing his motive, that the silence coming from the Sarah Palins is deafening. That all they can offer are their prayers and not an understanding that maybe, maybe, the position they advocate, the venom with which they spew it, the don’t-retreat-reload-stance is irresponsible.
And what if it turns out that a gun-toting anti-Democrat was the shooter? That he took too literally the target Sarah Palin had of Giffords, and others, on her website? I’ll bet the farm they will deem the shooter a lone wolf crazy person that didn’t represent the party’s true tenets and oh-what-a-shame. And the question of what is one’s responsibility when advocating for the support of dangerous weapons in dangerous settings will not even cross their small minds.
This is difficult for me. Because I am fiercely anti-gun, I generally LOATHE the Tea Party movement and everything Sarah Palin says and does, yet I am advocating peace and patience right now.
I can see a distaste for gun advocates today especially, but I feel that way every day. I can see a distaste for Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” and yes, she should step up and say something more than that she’s praying. But as to whether she should take blame, as to whether we should punish others before we know the motive? I disagree.
There is no benefit in rushing to accuse and there’s no detriment to waiting. There is no reason that we can’t just spend our time and energy hoping and praying for those who were hurt instead of shouting at those we feel are responsible. There will be time for blame, to turn this anger into something useful, but I don’t think this is the time.
Do I think this will probably come out and be a politically motivated shooting? yes, absolutely. But I think that throwing hate back is not the answer and it’s not going to benefit anyone at this point. It won’t bring back lives lost, it won’t change this tragedy. It might make us feel better in the meantime, but fighting hate with hate makes us no better than the other side.
Overflowing Brain´s last [type] ..Love turns the whole thing around
My rush is not to hold the Palinites responsible for pulling the trigger. I do not think they should be held accountable in a court of law, civil or criminal. But I do think it time they take ethical stock of their own actions and the very-real-life-effects it can have on others that may not be as conservative on shooting things up. What the Palinites have done is create a dangerous atmosphere where the likelihood of the outbreak of violence (and death of innocent children) is all but inevitable. And that they then to have nothing better to offer the victims of this than prayers is complete and utter ignorance and irresponsibility, ethically speaking.
Again, I say this NOW before we know who or why. Because the atmosphere is already charged by the Palinites. What comes out in way of facts now will be skewed and re-invented while the Palinites do everything they can to isolate the shooter as not one of them.
But the very real reality is that this shooter could quite easily have been one of them and they failed to appreciate that the vitriol they spewed is exactly the ammunition this guy needed to take action in a way otherwise incomprehensible. And the Palinites refusal to acknowledge that their hate-filled speeches may have in fact incited hate-in-action is unacceptable.
If it turns out this guy escaped a looney bin and did it in a skewed displacement of love, will the Palinites realize they dodged a bullet? Will they take heed and rethink that maybe this *could* have been one of their own and maybe they should be more ethically responsible in the future? No, they will not. And THAT is just another tragedy in this story.
Looking on the internet quickly reveals a few tidbits of rhetoric. Also, Congresswoman Gifford’s admonition that there are consequences to such irresponsible gestures.
Hopefully this will be the last time we have someone attempting Sharron Angle’s Tea Party Second Amendment “remedy.”
“If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying ‘My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? ‘And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” –Tea Party darling and Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle on Jan. 22, 2010. YouTube link.
“Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: ‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!’” –Sarah Palin, Mar. 23, 2010 Palin’s Twitter
“This is a situation where — people don’t — they really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there’s consequences to that action.” –Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010, after her office was vandalized following her health care reform vote. Link.
Pontchartrain Pete´s last [type] ..More Tut
I wish people would do some research before writing things. Was the writer aware that Ms. Giffords actually has the same stance as Ms. Palin when it comes to gun rights? Please, do your research first.
Imagine my utter shock when I emailed “Me” back only to learn he left a fake email address. Will fill in my own reasons for why someone would do such a thing on a comment such as he or she left.
How exactly have the “Palinites” “created a dangerous atmosphere”? By advocating that the people protect the ones they love if someone were to invade their home? By advocating that the 2nd Amendment ought to be applied? Neither of those positions caused or even contributed to the shooting. Even if you could legally ban all firearms, there were still be illegal firearms available and, if an individual is willing to do what this man did, then why do you believe that he would have been stopped by anti-guns laws when it came to acquiring a firearm?
You could just as easily say that the liberals by saddling this country with unsustainable debt, trying to erode the constitutional freedoms of Americans and trying to remake America in the image of Europe were the “cause” of the shooting. Neither position would be correct. The shooter is deranged and that is what caused the shooting not the political speech or actions of either side of the political spectrum.
Keith, today’s post may be the best response I can offer at this time. I do, however, continue to believe that currently there is a more electrified political atmosphere than we have had in my adult life–and although I appreciate that it comes from both sides, many of things various tea party politicians have said recently seem to be more incendiary, more irresponsible, than I can recall.
Maybe my sense of demanding more responsibility re: gun rights messages is that the underlying topic–guns–is inherently dangerous. And I think if there is to be a serious political discussion about gun rights, they should exclude idioms like “Don’t Retreat; Reload” and the fear-mongering that has been the tag-along message. For example, you may recall the spike in gun sales when Obama was elected because the tea party was adamant that Obama was going to take away Americans’ right to bear arms as one of his first actions as President. Obama never had that as his agenda but that didn’t stop the tea party from going on and on about it and convincing multitudes of Americans into believing it. When Obama, in fact, did not turn his attention to striping gun rights, did the tea party retreat? No. Per their mantra, they reloaded and shifted focus.
It is my opinion that public speakers on such a topic as gun rights have a greater degree of responsibility due to the need to take into account the loonies we all know exist in this world who are gun enthusiasts and who gravitate to those spewing about the looming threat to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
If the Left would not use every tragedy like this one to call for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens (the Brady Center’s comments about semi-automatic pistols is a prime example) then perhaps the response from the Right (appropriate or not) would not be as strong. If the Left would support the 2nd Amendment as much as they do portions of the 1st Amendment, then perhaps there would be less fear of what the Left would do with control of Congress and the White House. President Obama’s comments about those who cling to their religion and guns out of fear demonstrates a disdain (even contempt) for those of us for whom hunting is a integral part of lives and gives rise to concern about how he would act once in the White House.
Keith, you put the onus on the Left not to use tragedies to make a point about gun control and to support the Second Amendment.
Personally, I do not agree with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. But I accept that it IS and WILL BE the law of the land. Guns in America are here to stay. I don’t act to have the Second Amendment reinterpreted striping Americans of gun rights. It may not seem like active support of the Second Amendment, but to the extent I recognize and respect it as the law, I consider this “supporting the Second Amendment” within the confines of someone who has a philosophical issue with guns. I don’t think you can ask people who philosophically disagree with a law to support it any more than that. And I suspect many on the Left support the Second Amendment as much as I do.
Why do you not ask of the Right to reign in the fear-mongering? When Obama took office, why did you not demand that evidence be presented to show support of this agenda of Obama to strip the Second Amendment? Why not ask the Right for accountability for that fear-mongering they promoted when it was later proven to be for naught?
I guess I am suggesting that we ask of our party affiliations more than we ask of the affiliations of our opponents. In line with my post today, I implore us to ask ourselves what we can do to reduce the atmosphere of fear and loathing, and, by extension, what we can do to have the parties we ourselves voted into office do the same.
Keith says: “How exactly have the “Palinites” “created a dangerous atmosphere”? By advocating that the people protect the ones they love if someone were to invade their home? By advocating that the 2nd Amendment ought to be applied?”
As someone very much in favor of the 2nd amendment and opposed to gun control in response to this horrendous shooting, let me assure you that how you describe it is not how the Palinites have advocated gun rights.
Any gun owner and user knows that the language surrounding this weapon and the weapon itself ought to be used with caution, respect and responsibility. Palin, Angle and many in the Tea Party have been very callous and irresponsible with the way they bandy about guns and their lingo, by lecturing to people to “arm themselves, “to reload” and “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment solutions.” Guns need not show up to rallies to be used as symbols, totems and toys. They are not something to be played with, especially not politically.
Real gun owners know when to use their weapons and for BOTH sides (yes, including Republicans) to use gun language to set partisan tone is abhorrent and, again, irresponsible. None of these people deserve to own their guns. And, hell, Palin can’t even shoot hers straight.
Maitri´s last [type] ..Frilobite
Keith says, “You could just as easily say that the liberals by saddling this country with unsustainable debt, trying to erode the constitutional freedoms of Americans and trying to remake America in the image of Europe were the “cause” of the shooting” as if these premises are true. That Keith points out his belief that this would not have been the cause of the shooting doesn’t change that Keith believes these are statements of fact.
What are facts are that that Palin put crosshairs over Giffords’ district, that Sharron Angle stated there was a 2nd Amendment “remedy” for those unhappy with their congressional representation and that Congresswoman Giffords said she felt the threatened by Palin’s rhetoric.
Let’s take the first: “liberals saddling the country with unsustainable debt.” That people like Keith blame “liberals” for the national debt is a perfect illustration of the power of conservative rhetoric and fear mongering. Millions of people like Keith have completely forgotten that we had a balanced budget when Bush took office. Clinton (and that reminds me–I’m shocked that Keith didn’t whip out “Clinton did first!”) had established pay-as-you-go rules for budget matters (how conservative can you get?) which Bush and the Republican congress threw out the window to be able to pass their tax cuts and years of deficit-busting legislation, because, as VP Cheney stated (falsely) “Ronald Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Reagan proved no such thing, and had the common sense to roll BACK his tax cuts and raise taxes when he saw what they were doing to the deficit.
So where were Keith and the tea partiers back in 2001 and 2003 when the Congressional Budget Office said the cuts would GUARANTEE a trillion-dollar addition to the national debt by the time they would expire 10 years later? Where was Keith when Bush passed the unfunded Medicare pharmacy bill that guaranteed ANOTHER one trillion dollars would be added to the deficit? Where was Keith when Bush launched an unfunded expeditionary force to the Middle East adding yet another trillion dollars to the deficit? And let’s not forget Bush’s $700 billion TARP program. Where were Keith and the “conservatives” when the republican party dug this super massive black hole Obama has been saddled with?
As far as liberals “trying to erode the constitutional freedoms of Americans and trying to remake America in the image of Europe…” I would ask Keith, “What are you talking about?” I guess if you’re told enough times that something you begin to think it’s true. The gun and ammunition industry have made millions convincing the public Obama was going to outlaw guns, which he specifically said he wouldn’t do and, in fact, has not done.
Because conservatives want the president to fail in his efforts to dig this country out of the hole that the conservatives dug in the first place, they have to label the president’s efforts as “eroding freedoms” or “turning us into Europe.” And by the way, which image of Europe? The one in Germany with the vigorous economy, where labor and manufacturers work hand-in-hand to ensure success for both parties and health care for all is considered a no-brainer? Where they export 1/3 of everything they make? Or the one in Ireland where deregulation and conservative polices tanked their economy just like those policies did to the U.S. during the Bush years?
Were the shooter to come out and say he did what he did because the liberals and debt and eroding his freedoms, it would just prove NOLA’s point. It’s just more fear mongering and hyperbole that have made otherwise reasonable people like Keith come to these beliefs.
And by the way, not that it’s anyone’s business, I, too, am a gun owner.
ok – busy day so I won’t be able to respond to everything but here goes:
First, as far the rhetoric being the most extreme in recent history – I recal that there were those on the Left who called for the assassination of President George Bush. A MSM anchor even had Bush’s picture with a gun sight over it. And we mustn’t forget the constant comparision between President Bush and Hitler. Yet, no one was blaming the Left for a Culture of Violence which led to the attack.
Palin’s ad with a gun-sight on the Congressional District – it was a metaphor for the need to change the seat from Democrat to Republican. No one seriously suggests that the “War on Poverty” was inciting wars.
As far Republicans contributing to the debt – actually I opposed President Bush’s failure to reign in spending and to increase the debt. But the increases in the debt during the Bush Administration pales in comparision with the debt we have accumulated over the past two years.
As far as moving us to Europe and eroding liberty – Example A – Individual Mandates and Obamacare which is designed to bankrupt private insurers and lead to a single-payer system. Insurers can’t exclude pre-existing conditions, no caps of life-time expenditures and limits on amount which can be spent on administrative expenses will force insurance companies out of business which will lead to a single payer system.
Conservatives didn’t “dig this hole”. There is no simple answer for what caused the present economic troubles but what is clear is that the housing bubble played a large part of the problem. Democrats’ efforts to push lenders to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them for the sake of diversity and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (which Republicans tried unsuccessfully to reform) caused a large part of that problem.
Finally, I want this Country to recover and if the President will adopt policies which will do that while not eroding freedoms and the future of this Country then I wish him success. But his present policies are pushing this Country in the opposite direction. Look at the way that Obama Care was passed – we have to pass the bill so we know what is in it? The majority of Americans oppose a bill yet the Democratic leadership rams it through without allowing debate or amendments while buying votes for special treatment for certain states. This recklessness does cause concern which is not the same as “fear mongering” Why has vocal dissent gone from our patrotic duty to fear mongoering.
The rhetoric on both sides has at time become heated but to blame the current climate of the discourse at the feet of Conservatives and Republicans is to ignore reality.
Keith, again you prove the point. Someone I was discussing your comment with said that it’s great Keith’s being civil in all this. I don’t agree. Coming in regurgitating the lies and falsehoods and false equivalencies that might make the misinformed think both sides are equally responsible is not being “civil” even when done in a polite tone. For example, you say health care reform was passed without debate. False. Health care reform was debated and negotiated ad nauseum; what finally passed was a watered-down version of what liberals actually wanted. Time and again, democratic leadership met with republican leadership and industry lobbyists and despite scrubbing several key points to appease both, the democrats got no support from the other side in the for the final bill.
The Affordable Care Act may end up being bad for some in the industry, but that by no means equates to anyone’s liberty being eroded.
As far as the mortgage crisis was concerned, the Community Reinvestment Act so many conservatives blame for putting mortgages into the wrong hands is another canard. The act applied only to Federal Reserve backed-banks and never applied to mortgage brokers or private lenders (Countrywide). Neither did it apply to countries such as Ireland, Britain and Japan, where identical systemic failures resulting from the slicing and dicing and securitizing of mortgages into exotic investment vehicles that amounted to straight gambling caused crises identical to that in the U.S.
While some liberals called Bush a Nazi and threw darts at his picture, here are 18 violent incidents that have occurred since 2008 where the perpetrators were of, lets say, the “right wing” variety, even if they were nuts, too.
I’d like you to supply a list of (I’ll spot you 12, even) six incidents of this caliber taken by persons during the same time frame inspired by liberal rhetoric.
– July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.
– October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.
– December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.
– December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.
– January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.
– February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.
– April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.
– April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.
– May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
– June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.
– February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)
– March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.
– March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.
– May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.
– May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.
– May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.
– July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.
– September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
Franklin: Last time I checked, Sarah Palin isn’t a white supremacist or a member of a militia. Similarly, the Tea Party isn’t a white supremacist organiziation nor is it a militia. So, these incidences you cite are not actions by Conservatives and/or the Tea Party. The fact that you equate the Tea Party and/or Sarah Palin with either group without any foundation is illogical, defamatory and the same type of rhetoric for which you condemn the Right.
The Mortgage Crisis would not have occurred but for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the fact that Democrats blocked reforms at both institutions.
As far as Obama Care goes, the Democrats would not allow amendments. The Democrats’ idea of negotiations were take it or leave. Is that really democracy in action?
And, yes, the Bill does erode freedom – the Individual Mandate compels individuals to engage in economic transactions. How can you say that doesn’t erode an individual’s liberty?
As the name of the post says, no one said taking responsibility was easy. Keith, you need to start working on it.
Right wing anti-government rhetoric is dangerous no matter which label you slap on it. I’m asking, for example, whether someone cited Keith Olbermann’s book before murdering people, as Jim David Adkisson cited Bernard Goldberg, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity’s book before murdering two people or Byron Williams citing Glenn Beck as the inspiration for his planned (and luckily thwarted) rampage.
Re: the mortgage crises. Again, you are misinformed. You can’t say Freddie & Fannie over and over like that means something. Like the community investment act, Fannie and Freddie had nothing whatsoever to do with the exact same structural failures elsewhere in the world. Freddie & Frannie simply do not exist in Ireland, Britain and Japan.
“Wouldn’t allow amendments” as somehow not democracy in action is another hollow complaint. It’s called having a majority. Concessions were made, negotiations did take place with input from both sides. But at some point you have to bring a bill to the floor. It’s not going to be the Republican’s bill when there is a Democratic majority. That is EXACTLY “democracy in action.” We expect nothing different (and were treated the same way) when Republicans are in the majority.
As far as the mandate, how is it different from other mandates—registering for selective service, mandatory auto insurance, paying taxes, keeping rats out of your food (if you’re a restaurant owner), etc.—required for the benefit of EVERYONE AS A SOCIETY?
I ask of the politicians I’ve voted into office to ask of themselves what they can do to temper the electrified climate that currently exists. I ask of them to do the tough job of allowing gun rights to be a discussion for improvement and not cave into the NRA and give up because gosh-darn-it’s-so-HARD. I ask of them to take this as an opportunity to rise up and be better politicians and thus better human beings.
Keith, I get the sense you ask some of the same things of my politicians as well. But I get no sense of what this disaster has stirred in you or Franklin to ask of your own politicians. This is my hope: that we can all look first to ourselves and our politicians for the change we demand–and only when we hold them accountable do we then have a leg to stand on to cast judgment on others.
Franklin:
The man who went on a shooting spree at the Discovery Channel cited Al Gore’s book yet I don’t see you blaming Al Gore. Deranged individuals take reality and twist it.
On health care, there were no “compromises” – it was take it or leave it. No “concessions” were made. And yes – it is different – the Health Care Bill requires people to entered into economic transactiosn. Registering for Selective Service is fundamentally different as is requiring liability insurance if one choses to drive a car.
My whole point is that alot of folks blame “right wing rhetoric” for the violence when there is no evidence that supports that claim. Have individuals on both the Right and the Left used metaphors associated with violent acts? Yes – but that is not the same as advocating violence which is what many are suggesting.
Many (but not all) on the Left have taken any criticism of the present Administration as “fear mongering” and advocating violence. My point was that many of the actions of the Democrats have justifiably caused concern but that to blame those who are concerned about the direction this country is taking with inciting violence is simply wrong.
What happened in Arizona was a tragedy. The reaction to blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Party was wrong. Have there been excesses on both sides? Of course. Again, my point is that neither Sarah Palin nor the Tea Party is to blame and the concerns raised by both have a legitimate basis (even if you disagree). Leaders on both sides need to rise above that.
NOLA – I want our politicians to act like adults – let’s have a civil debate (i.e. don’t call someone a liar just because they don’t agree with you) and accept that two people can see the same event and have completely different perceptions of what is going on. You can’t dismiss another’s understanding/perception as a simply a lie or a false statement (especially where there is a basis in fact for it) and then demand “civility” in a discussion of public affairs.
What do I want from politicians in response to Arizona? First, don’t engage in the blame game. Blame lies with the shooter. Period. Second, don’t rush to act just to be seen as “doing something”.
For example, let’s pass an act which prohibits guns within 100 feet of a federal official. Well, if someone is determined to shoot a federal official, do you really think that another federal law about having a gun in close proximity to a federal official is going to cause the would-be murdered to say – I guess I won’t do that? No – it won’t.
Both sides need to step back, go slowly and listen. We have big problems and it is going to take both sides to make this work. This means give and take. Slinging mud (such as associating Conservatives with white supremacists) isn’t going to solve the problems we face.
I have to admit, Keith, that it upsets me that you don’t indicate that you seem to feel the Tea Party will have taken this tragedy as something from which to reflect that maybe their own message is too strong; that they themselves should consider tuning it down. Yes, you want both sides to debate civilly, but that is an easy thing to say. I am asking for us all to do that which is not easy–I am asking that we each look at ourselves with a hard, bright light and learn from this tragedy and see what role we each may have played in it. If you in any way represent the Tea Party, I see no sense of an inkling of concern that maybe the party’s rhetoric *could* have played a part in this tragedy. Rather, the Tea Party side-steps that direct assertion by suggesting both sides play nicer.
I’ve made concessions of the politicians for whom I’ve voted. I still am not seeing sincere concessions of the supporters of the Tea Party.
I’m still not buying it, Keith. Al Gore didn’t say if you don’t agree with me, you’re a cancer, a virus and I reserve the right to beat you by violent means if I don’t win at the ballot box.
In the early 90s Newt Gingrich changed the way conservatives presented their position. It was no longer a matter of presenting your position using facts and logic; Newt added an element that you have to lambaste, marginalize and dehumanize the opposition when making your point.
That’s led us to today, where we hear the likes of Beck over and over calling liberal ideology a “cancer,” “the disease that’s killing us,” a “virus,” a “parasite,” “vampires” and claims that progressives intend the “destruction of the Constitution” and will strike it a “death blow.” Things that if they actually were true, might lead a reasonable person to violence. That it’s not true and most people recognize it as hyperbole doesn’t remove the fact that this hyperbole is enough to put an unreasonable (or unreasoning) person over the edge. Time will tell if that’s what’s happened with Loughner or whether something else put him over the edge.
In all seriousness, do you expect us to listen to your leaders in media talk about how liberals are a “cancer” out to destroy America, how the Tea Party is “a second revolution” and how they need to reserve the right to armed insurrection, to watch them bring guns to public political gatherings because it’s their “right,” to see them run ads using targets over people, to hear the irrational screaming anger at their rallies, and preach that one could “2nd Amendment” way out of representation they’re unhappy about and then NOT conclude those speakers’ words played a role when someone shoots a Democratic Congressman in one of the main hotbeds of such angry talk and “open carrying” at political functions?
This is my last word on the topic. I welcome your response; you get the overall last word, unless our hostess NOLA takes that privilege.
O.K., I lied. But it’s not about you, Keith. Food for thought: this just in from the The Arizona Republic newspaper.
It seems three republicans have resigned their committee posts after the shooting Saturday, fearing that local Tea Party members, angry they backed McCain and not Tea Party candidate Hayworth in the 2010 Senate campaign, might take up the “2nd Amendment remedy” against them.
Our President says that I cling to my guns and religion out of fear. Liberals compare Republicans to Nazi by saying that they are “brown shirts in pinstripes”. There were repeated calls for the assassination of George Bush. Republicans are racists and want to return us to the era of Jim Crow. And yet – its the Tea Party’s fault for the current state of political debate?
I don’t watch or listen to Glenn Beck so I can’t definitively address the “cancer” comment but I strongly suspect that it was an analogy. In other words, the liberal ideals such as that the government can solve our problems, that higher taxes will lead to economic prosperity, etc are undermining the core values which made this country great. Franklin – you equated Conservatives with white supremacists which is far worse, in my opinion, than the cancer analogy.
I haven’t been to a Tea Party rally nor do I even consider myself to be a member of the Tea Party. Conservative – yes. Republican – yes. So I don’t want to try and “speak for” the Tea Party.
Do I think that the comment about sometimes watering the tree of liberty with blood was inappropriate – yes. But I don’t think that comment or the fact that some people who attend Tea Party rallies wearing guns is indicative of the Tea Party and what it stands for.
As I understand it, the Tea Party is a group of individuals who are frustrated with the direction of the country and the fact that its leaders are not listening or are simply ignoring what the majority of Americans want. They worry that politicians in both parties are mortgaging their children’s future. When politicians say we have to pass a bill to find out what is in it – that is an indication that the process is fundamentally flawed and it rightly raises concerns.
What I am hearing is complaints about analogies which have been taken out of context and context is important.
I have been blessed with a couple of wonderful children. What if one of my kids starts to walk across the street to a neighbor’s house and there is a car coming. I tell my child to stop but the child puts his/her fingers in his/her ears and starts to sing loadly to drown out the instructions I am giving. I start yelling because I think that it is necessary to do because I believe it is the only way my child will hear me and the only way to save the child’s life. The context in which I am yelling is very important in determining whether I am being a good parent or something else.
When I hear “Tea Party” I think of people who are calling on government to be more responsive and responsible. I think of a good friend of mine. He is what we call a “good ole boy”. He is a mountain of a man who loves to hunt and fish. He and his wife both have 3 jobs each in order to put their daughter in a private school so she can get a decent education. He takes care of his elderly parents and would give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. He loves his country and has a “Don’t Tread on Me” sticker on the back of his truck. He worries about the future of our country. He doesn’t talk about killing people or a second revolution. If his analogies aren’t perfect and maybe lack the sophistication of something William Buckley would have said, I can live with that. I don’t think that he and others like him are the current problem so I have a hard time saying that they need to change their rhetoric or tone down their devotion to this country.
Keith, I take great offense to your analogy regarding screaming loudly at your children playing in traffic to save themselves from danger as being akin to the political situation currently afoot. The Tea Party is not a parent; those who disagree are not recalcitrant children; plugging one’s ears to drown out the Tea Party does not risk one’s personal safety. It is this we-know-better-what-is-best-for-you mentality of the Right that I have asked you now three times to question whether is too heavy handed. It is clear you think it is not. And, to me, that is a great pity.
NOLA – I have gone through periods when I didn’t post anything on the internet even on a site (no longer in existence) where I regularly blogged b/c the potential for misunderstanding was so great as result of the nature of blog postings.
First, as I have said before in this discussion – there have been rhetorical excesses on both the Left AND the Right. Comments about watering the tree of liberty or the political ad run in a local Congressional Race where “George Washington” was talking with a candidate about the modern version of “taxation without representation” and one of the two men pulled out a flintlock pistol and said “gather your armies” or some other non-sense don’t accomplish anything and counter-productive to a fruitful discussion of pressing issues.
Let me say again – there has been excessive rhetoric on the Right.
That is not to say that I agree with the suggestion that the Tea Party has created a potentially violent situation. Rhetorical excesses – yes. Poorly chosen analogies/metaphors – “you betcha”. A call to armed revolution – no.
My point about the story of my children was not to put either side in the role of parent or child. Instead, my point was that if you simply walked up on me yelling at my child with no understanding of the context of my actions you might draw the wrong conclusions about what was happening. I think that has happened with some of ways that members of the Tea Party have expressed themselves. People have taken statements out the context of when they were made, why they were made and by whom they were made and drawn the wrong conclusions.
You are a lawyer and are trained to be precise in what you say. Not everyone has that training or experience. They speak from their heart and don’t always do it well – to take their comments in isolation and claim that they are inciting violence doesn’t do them or us justice.
Keith, I appreciate your patience with me and your ability to stay civil when I didn’t always see your point. This is just the discourse all Americans need right now.
Now on to more pressing issues – will you send me a king cake?