"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She's been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why [Gabrielle Giffords] might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona..." - Paul Krugman
"It's not the right,but the left that glorifies criminal behavior and violent imagery." - Rush Limbaugh
"Because I think it's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business..." - Sheriff Clarence Dupnik
"You could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen..." - Paul Krugman
"The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic." - Judson Phillips
Is it just me, or did we have a list of people and organizations responsible for the tragic shooting in Tucson before we even had a list of names of Jared Laughner's victims? The left says the right is responsible, the right says it's the left's fault. I can't help but wonder if any of these people have based their accusation in fact. Are we to assume that a list of pundits and public speakers are responsible for Laughner's actions?
Wouldn't it be safer to say that the people responsible for what Laughner did are the people who he lists as influential? After some digging, one will find that Laughner had published a list of favorite books on his YouTube channel. On the list - Wizard of Oz, Fahrenheit 451, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and The Republic. So, if we follow the facts, then, the real offenders here are not talk radio, but L. Frank Baum, Ray Bradbury, Karl Marx, Hitler, and Plato, right?
Obviously, it's absurd to assume that Plato is responsible for this tragedy. Equally as absurd as it is to assume that Sarah Palin is responsible.
So who is really responsible? JARED LAUGHNER of course!!! Not Sarah Palin, not Rush Limbaugh, not Plato.
It amazes me how so many media-ites and pundits jump at the chance to politicize a tragedy like this. This should be a time of national solidarity as we band together to condemn this atrocity instead of a time to point fingers. It shouldn't be used as an opportunity to blame each other or a map of the US with "cross-hairs" on it, or the voice on the radio. Finger-pointing only further intensifies an already electric situation. I am so happy to see that at least President Obama has taken the high road and asked us all to come together and pray for the victims of this tragedy instead of pointing fingers. I hope that more high profile figures can follow suit.
Is there an underlying theme to all of this that only a few will notice? The fact that many people seem to point to a gamut of causes for this tragedy instead of squarely blaming the actual perpetrator (at least in my eyes) poses a question. We all know who pulled the trigger, but why are so many eager to search for the "man behind the curtain" that made him do it? I know the primary reason for the blame game is that many view this as a chance to advance a political cause, but could it be possible that the search for a puppeteer also indicates a growing lack of emphasis on personal responsibility?
Gladiator II Is a Lavish, Empty Spectacle
1 hour ago
5 comments:
Good post, but I have to disagree somewhat with your characterization of the right and left having equally poor reactions to the shooting. First off, Rush Limbaugh seems to be reacting (in his Monday show) to the spurious charges made by prominent people on the left over the weekend. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction immediately after the event. Also, that quote you put up is something I agree with. True, you can find some lone conservative voices who glorify violence, but by-and-large I think that those who do it most are liberals. As in the example he gave, the violence depicted in rap music and rap videos is staunchly defended as "art" by the left. A second example, nearly all of the calls for a reduction in graphic, gratuitous violence in movies are done by conservative groups and individuals. "Artists" on the left defend such violence.
Secondly, to compare statements by very prominent people on the left (Like Paul Krugman-2,390,000 google hits, Markos Moulitsas-182,000, Andrew Sullivan-1,340,000 to name a few) with the statements of a virtual unknown (I've never even heard of Judson Phillips-46,000) is comparing apples and oranges. Besides, what he said has more basis in fact than any purported linkage to Sarah Palin or the Tea Party. There is no evidence that the shooter had any ties to Palin, the Tea Party, or any conservative group. There is also no evidence that he was associated with any specific leftist group. But, the evidence of his ideology does point leftward, what between his flag burning fetish, his liking of the Communist Manifesto, his dope usage, his anti-religous views, and his friends describing him as a liberal.
I agree with you completely that the blame lies with Jared Laughner. I just dislike that the initial, immediate reaction (with no supporting evidence) of people on the left is to blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Party. The 'right' reactions you listed were either a defensive posture taken as a result of ill-founded leftist accusations, or reactions based on evidence after actually gathering some, not a knee-jerk speculation that was immediately after the event.
As far as Phillips is concerned - few may have heard of him individually, but many, I'm sure, have heard of Tea Party Nation, the group he founded.
While you're right in your observation that it appears that the majority of the blame seems to be coming from the left than right, the right is participating in the finger-pointing all the same. While Limbaugh's and Phillips' statements were indeed primarily reactionary, they were still baited into the blame game rather than taking the high road.
Such is my overreaching point here. The tendency for so many to dive into accusations instead of square condemnation of the event.
Love the comments. Keep them coming.
Im not saying that it was any specific person that influenced him to do anything. We can't ignore the fact that people are influenced by those in positions of authority. We do all agree though that you have the free will to ultimately choose what you are going to do and the blame should be on the person that committed the act.
At the same time though, people do get influenced by people in influential positions such as politicians, radio hosts, preachers, etc.
Conservatives right now are widely speaking out that that nobody is to blame but himself and that no one had any influence on him. I guess my whole point with this post is that conservatives claim nothing influences anyone to do anything and that everything is ultimately on you for your choice. That is fine and dandy except there are many things that influence us every day whether we like it or even know it.
We get influenced to go eat stuff or to go somewhere by ads and billboards every day, or by commercials we see.
Nate posted that Conservatives are mostly responsible for all of the "calls for a reduction in graphic, gratuitous violence in movies are done by conservative groups and individuals. " The reason? They are the most scared that things such as: music, movies, video games, and other media are going to influence their children.
I find it funny that when the boys shot up Columbine High School, Conservatives blamed Marylyn Manson and his lyrics for "influencing" them or "teaching" them to do violent things. Its just very hypocritical that the right is so worried about protecting those who represent their ideologies that they wont acknowledge the fact that "when it is expedient for us, we will blame it on something/someone else, and when it might come back on us, we will claim it was his personal choice." The conservatives are always the one blaming the entertainment world in general for influencing us and our kids with its low moral standards (They arent wrong, just hypocritical).
We know better than anyone that people are influenced just by what people can say. look at all the radical clerics and nuts that exist over in the middle east that influence people just by what they say, to go blow themselves up.
To say that liberals are responsible for most of the violent calls to action is absurd. Most of the militas in the US (which the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI) have deemed very dangerous are made up of whackos with conservative ideals such as the Hutaree that were planning to kill the police officers.
Comparing the "tone" of rhetoric used by a talk radio host or a typical politician to that of a rap song, Marylyn Manson, let alone to that of a radical cleric seems to be a bit of a stretch.
While people are no doubt influenced by everything they see every day, to simply assume that a mentally disturbed man who commits an atrocity MUST have been influenced by Sarah Palin's maps, without a shred of proof to back up such an absurd claim, is irresponsible.
Conservatives aren't denying that people are influenced by what they see or hear. They're alarmed that so many are eager to point a finger at a puppeteer without proof of strings. That's what Nate and I are trying to say - Laughner was more influenced by the government's use of grammar than by anything a conservative had to say.
As far as militias with conservative ideals, you're probably right. I mean, after all, a liberal militia would seem to be a contradiction of terms. However, there are extremists on both sides. Bill Ayers and the weather underground, firebombing animal rights groups, Lee H. Oswald, John Hinckley, Black Panthers with clubs and others compliment the Hutaree well.
A responsible person wouldn't say that a mainstream figure's reference to swing districts as battleground states caused the black panthers to stand outside of a polling place with clubs or prompted Oswald to kill Kennedy. Nor would a responsible person say that conservative talk radio made Laughner do what he did.
Actually a liberal militia makes the most sense out of everything. Our original minutemen were quite liberal in the true sense of the word (I say true because it has been distorted by the right for so many years.) If they were conservative they would have been ok with the norm and wouldn't have been progressive enough to break free from a tyrant.
Post a Comment