Gabrielle Giffords

[ERD50]

My understanding is that the mentally ill person knows that something is wrong, and the mind is looking for an explanation.

I'll leave the research alone for now and address your point. ... However, I understand that approximately 12.4 million people in the US have a serious mental illness.

Thanks to you both - I agree with this, I guess I just feel we are looking at two different issues. Yes, in general the mentally ill probably need much more help from us then they are getting. I'm just trying to keep this in perspective of this specific tragedy. And I just think it's tough to pin this event on anything specific. And even if we could, it seems to me it could just as well be some other trigger (like a movie star, book, movie, etc).

Actually, I just had another thought. When MP said that the mentally ill are ' looking for an explanation'. Well, all of us are, right? We want to be able to explain this, we want to assign a cause. Maybe I'm OK with thinking the cause is mental illness, but for others that isn't enough. They want to take another step further and look for the 'trigger'. If they see the trigger as talk radio, or rhetoric, or whatever then there is a 'solution' - cut the talk. That might seem easier to solve then the large problem of mental illness.

And I'm not trying to assign any right/wrong to that. Its just different viewpoints, and different ways that people cope. But it might explain why people want to assign a 'cause'. We are all uncomfortable with what we can't explain - how can you prevent a future occurrance? Just food for thought, me 'talking' out loud.

(Listen to callers and interviewees on 'Coast to Coast', the bizarre middle of the night radio show, for some of the stranger cases. No, sir, the President is not really a reptile wearing a human skin. That's a fictional TV series...)

Oh, I've tuned into that a few times in the past few years on a late night drive. I thought maybe I was abducted to another planet. In the most positive terms I can apply, it is 'enlightening' to hear who we share this world with. No one sounded dangerous (at least that I heard), but I couldn't help wondering - if they believe this stuff, what would they do with this 'knowledge'. And is the host just playing a game? He's pretty convincing.

-ERD50

 

[RonBoyd]

When Congress Was Armed And Dangerous

THE announcement that Representatives Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Jason Chaffetz of Utah are planning to wear guns in their home districts has surprised many, but in fact the United States has had armed congressmen before. In the rough-and-tumble Congress of the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s, politicians regularly wore weapons on the House and Senate floors, and sometimes used them.

And once again we’re reminded that words matter. Communication is the heart and soul of American democratic governance, but there hasn’t been much fruitful discourse of late — among members of Congress, between the people and their representatives or in the public sphere. We need to get better at communicating not only quickly, but civilly.

 

[ronin]

From what I've seen of this guy's ramblings and beliefs, there is no cohesive traditional ideology in it.

This is possibly an insight into the backstory on his seemingly incoherent beliefs:

Jared Lee Loughner: Lost in Translation | Bombs, Taxes, and Red Crayons

 

[ls99]

Krauthammer summed up the situation very well. I think his previous profession was that of a shrink, so has the qualifications to discuss.

I very much agree with him. Wish I could write as well as he.

Charles Krauthammer - Massacre, followed by libel

 

[ziggy29]

Krauthammer summed up the situation very well. I think his previous profession was that of a shrink, so has the qualifications to discuss.

I very much agree with him. Wish I could write as well as he.

Charles Krauthammer - Massacre, followed by libel

Couple of things here, focusing on the somewhat less political here to keep it within the rules:

1. The incident was NOBODY's fault other than the shooter.

2. There's no evidence that the shooter got ANY of his ideas from the usual incendiary, provocative ideological/partisan sources.

3. Having granted items (1) and (2), isn't still a good idea to step back and ask ourselves if we're a better nation for the increasing incivility in political discourse? Even if no one but the shooter is to blame, do we feel good about the state of political discourse today, that the increasingly hostile and intolerant rhetoric on both sides is what is going to help us solve some serious (but still solvable) problems we face? It may not have been the cause of THIS tragedy, but I'm not convinced it can't be the cause of another one in the future.

 

[ls99]

Couple of things here, as some of the article (IMO) is bordering on too much of the political here:

1. The incident was NOBODY's fault other than the shooter.

2. There's no evidence that the shooter got ANY of his ideas from the usual incendiary, provocative ideological/partisan sources.

3. Having granted items (1) and (2), isn't still a good idea to step back and ask ourselves if we're a better nation for the increasing incivility in political discourse? Even if no one but the shooter is to blame, do we feel good about the state of political discourse today, that the increasingly hostile and intolerant rhetoric on both sides is what is going to help us solve some serious (but still solvable) problems we face? It may not have been the cause of THIS tragedy, but I'm not convinced it can't be the cause of another one in the future.

Item 1. That is exactly Krauthammer's position


From the article:

"Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom...."

"There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head."

Item 2. Ditto.

Edit add:Fail to see the political angle

 

[samclem]

3. Having granted items (1) and (2), isn't still a good idea to step back and ask ourselves if we're a better nation for the increasing incivility in political discourse? Even if no one but the shooter is to blame, do we feel good about the state of political discourse today, that the increasingly hostile and intolerant rhetoric on both sides is what is going to help us solve some serious (but still solvable) problems we face? It may not have been the cause of THIS tragedy, but I'm not convinced it can't be the cause of another one in the future.

Sure, increased civility on all sides would be welcome and productive. That's true at any time. It's a discussion we need to have and should pursue. But to link that discussion with this shooting seems to me, at the least, counterproductive.

But, then, I'm a fan of personal responsibility and accountability.

 

[Purron]

Sure, increased civility on all sides would be welcome and productive. That's true at any time. It's a discussion we need to have and should pursue. But to link that discussion with this shooting seems to me, at the least, counterproductive.

But, then, I'm a fan of personal responsibility and accountability.

I'm also a fan of personal responsibility and accountability, but disagree with your other comments. It's a very good time to have this discussion. The information we've heard through the media indicates this was an act of a very disturbed individual and not likely caused by any particular event or person. We may know more later, but I doubt anything will come out to clarify what was really going on in the killer's mind.

Because this was an elected official, it changes the game. Many people are worried about future events spurred on by political hatred and the quality of people willing to run for office. Can you imagine how many of our newly elected representatives are feeling right now? And their families and loved ones?

 

[samclem]

I'm also a fan of personal responsibility and accountability, but disagree with your other comments. It's a very good time to have this discussion. The information we've heard through the media indicates this was an act of a very disturbed individual and not likely caused by any particular event or person. We may know more later, but I doubt anything will come out to clarify what was really going on in the killer's mind.

Because this was an elected official, it changes the game. Many people are worried about future events spurred on by political hatred and the quality of people willing to run for office. Can you imagine how many of our newly elected representatives are feeling right now? And their families and loved ones?

So, just so I understand, how is the incivility of our political discourse linked to this shooting? I don't see any evidence of a linkage at all. By the accounts of his friends he was not politically knowledgeable or active.

A nutcase shot at Jerry Ford, there was no call for greater political brotherhood. A nutcase shot at Ronald Reagan, there was no call for a love-in or banning of various types of speech. Even when assassinations have been politically motivated, we've had the good sense to blame the shooter. I hope we don't abandon that tradition.

 

[ziggy29]

So, just so I understand, how is the incivility of our political discourse linked to this shooting? I don't see any evidence of a linkage at all. A nutcase shot at Jerry Ford, there was no call for greater political brotherhood. A nutcase shot at Ronald Reagan, there was no call for a love-in.

The state of political discourse today is nothing like it was when there were assassination attempts on Ford and Reagan. I've never seen so many people pissed off at other people for no other reason than that they support the "wrong" team.

I suppose we should wait for another assassination that is *clearly* the result of some marginally stable individual going over the edge because of toxic, incendiary (left wing *or* right wing) rhetoric before we start discussing whether the state of political discourse today is desirable? That seems to be what you're implying here. That reminds me of local government policy to not put stop signs into dangerous intersections until AFTER a kid is hit by a car there.

I fail to see why a call for more civility in how we talk politics is so unacceptable to you, especially when none of the cooler heads here are blaming anyone but the kook who pulled the trigger. It's not like it's a call for government-imposed "speech codes" or a call for people to abandon their principles -- just that they stop treating people who disagree as their mortal enemies. You don't have to *blame* toxic rhetoric in this case to think it's not leading us down a productive or desirable path.

 

[Martha]

So, just so I understand, how is the incivility of our political discourse linked to this shooting? I don't see any evidence of a linkage at all. A nutcase shot at Jerry Ford, there was no call for greater political brotherhood. A nutcase shot at Ronald Reagan, there was no call for a love-in. Even when assassinations have been politically motivated, we've had the good sense to blame the shooter. I hope we don't abandon that tradition.

Interestingly, I understand that after President Kennedy was shot there apparently was a fair amount of discussion about the charged political climate in Dallas and the anti-Kennedy rhetoric there and whether that may have been a factor in the shooting.

"Blaming the shooter" isn't very meaningful to me. Sure, fine, put the guy away for ever. But it is more forward looking to consider factors that may effect what people do and what contributes to making people who they are. We are all a bundle of causes and effects, including the shooter. (I am not making assumptions about what those causes are in this shooter's case).

And, as Ziggy said, "You don't have to *blame* toxic rhetoric in this case to think it's not leading us down a productive or desirable path."

 

[samclem]

What you said:

I fail to see why a call for more civility in how we talk politics is so unacceptable to you.

What I already said (post 132, emphasis added):

Sure, increased civility on all sides would be welcome and productive. That's true at any time. It's a discussion we need to have and should pursue. But to link that discussion with this shooting seems to me, at the least, counterproductive.

There's no ambiguity in my statement--I believe we should be doing more to keep the tone civil. Why would I find it "unacceptable?"

 

[Purron]

So, just so I understand, how is the incivility of our political discourse linked to this shooting? I don't see any evidence of a linkage at all. By the accounts of his friends he was not politically knowledgeable or active.

A nutcase shot at Jerry Ford, there was no call for greater political brotherhood. A nutcase shot at Ronald Reagan, there was no call for a love-in or banning of various types of speech. Even when assassinations have been politically motivated, we've had the good sense to blame the shooter. I hope we don't abandon that tradition.

I'm not calling for a love-in or speech banning. I'm also not linking this tragic event to the current political state of affairs. Just saying now is as good a time as any to pursue the discussion.

Edited to add: On second thought, why not have a love-in?

 

[ziggy29]

There's no ambiguity in my statement--I believe we should be doing more to keep the tone civil. Why would I find it "unacceptable?"

I don't know, maybe because it *feels* to me like other stuff is combining to send a mixed message. Maybe I'm just a dolt and I'm parsing it wrong. (You don't need to agree. )

 

[Westernskies]

I'm not calling for a love-in or speech banning. I'm also not linking this tragic event to the current political state of affairs. Just saying now is as good a time as any to pursue the discussion.

Edited to add: On second thought, why not have a love-in?

bbbamI should be along shortly with her group hug emoticon.

 

[Nords]

So, just so I understand, how is the incivility of our political discourse linked to this shooting? I don't see any evidence of a linkage at all. By the accounts of his friends he was not politically knowledgeable or active.

I wonder if a smart prosecutor is researching his ISP's records to see if any of that account's computers accessed the IP address of the website with the crosshairs over her Congressional district.

It's human nature to attempt to discern a pattern and make sense out of this senseless act.

 

[haha]

Many people are worried about future events spurred on by political hatred and the quality of people willing to run for office.

Isn't it fairly clear that political hatred is exactly what did not "spur on" this event.

It was spurred on by some deranged internal functions inside a lunatic's head.

The Washington Post is hardly a conservative rag. A similar aticle was in David Brooks NYT column. Bend it though we might wish, we can't seem to make it take the desired shape.

Ha

 

[Westernskies]

The Memorial Service tonite was just what the nation needed, IMO.
Excellent speech by President Obama.

 

[Purron]

The Memorial Service tonite was just what the nation needed, IMO.
Excellent speech by President Obama.

Thank you Westernskies. This means a lot to me hearing this from you my friend. DH and I were very touched by his speech.

 

[Mmm Rrr]

The Memorial Service tonite was just what the nation needed, IMO.
Excellent speech by President Obama.

He made my eyes leak...

 

[NW-Bound]

The following Web article told of this killer's previous mental problems. Sadly, his infractions only led to expulsion from the college, but were not bad enough to warrant incarceration.

Open Channel - Records show fear of Loughner, lack of mental health intervention

One of his former classmates describes him as a "left-wing pothead". This confuses me as I was told on this forum that marijuana supposedly calmed one down.

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead" - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

 

[Martha]

It was spurred on by some deranged internal functions inside a lunatic's head.



Ha

We are all influenced by our culture. Including lunatics. Just as it is over simplifying to say the political climate caused this tragedy , it is also oversimplifying to say that it was just the deranged internal workings of his mind.

 

[haha]

We are all influenced by our culture. Including lunatics. Just as it is over simplifying to say the political climate caused this tragedy , it is also oversimplifying to say that it was just the deranged internal workings of his mind.

Well certainly we are all influenced by our culture, just like we all tend to have PCBs and various chemicals on board that we have gotten from our physical environment.

But, so what? It is impossible to have a society without political tensions, except maybe Iceland where everybody is one's cousin. In some societies the discussion is suppressed, until a group gets really fed up and then they start a revolution, or if the Army gets fed up first they mount a coup. In modern democracies political differences are more or less freely expressed. Nothing works perfectly, but which approach tends to work better?

Maybe politics should have moderators, like this board. That would definitely cool discussion, especially if the moderators were free to deport citizens. But then I guess we would have run out of freedom, and all the people who died in US Wars at least from WW1 onward would clearly have died in vain.

Why did we hear little about a need to stifle political rhetoric after Reagan was shot? Why was his attempted assassination an act of a lunatic, while Rep. Giffords' attempted assassination must somehow be the result, even if indirect, of our "strident political culture"?

Do you remember an unusually peaceful political climate around Reagan's term? I certainly do not.

 

[harley]

The following Web article told of this killer's previous mental problems. Sadly, his infractions only led to expulsion from the college, but were not bad enough to warrant incarceration.

Open Channel - Records show fear of Loughner, lack of mental health intervention

One of his former classmates describes him as a "left-wing pothead". This confuses me as I was told on this forum that marijuana supposedly calmed one down.

Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead" - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

And you were told correctly. According to one of his best friends,

After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, "his theories got worse," Tierney says. "After he quit, he was just off the wall."

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords | Mother Jones

 

[Hiredgun]

+1 Haha. You've got it right about Reagan. There was no similar discussion because he was on the wrong side of the media. It's a real shame that this tragedy has been so abused for personal gain. One Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, is actually fundraising, basing his plea for donations on the Giffords Shooting:
Vt. senator cites shootings in fundraising letter - KansasCity.com

SHAME ON YOU SENATOR!

I live in AZ and this shooting was devastating for all of us. And the political ugliness that followed is a huge disservice to AZ and the Country. I don't ever remember politics being this ugly or those involved so lacking in compassion or a soul.