Filtering Bile

The below began via comments to a FaceBook post. I invite you to read and continue the discussion, with civility. Bashing from the left or right will not be tolerated. 

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona, was on Palin's infamous "target" map (Updated) - B

www.boingboing.net

UPDATE, 11:59AM PT: Tucson, AZ University Medical Center on CNN: Gifford is alive, and in surgery. "I can confirm that she was shot in the head," said a hospital spokesperson. Among the shooting victims in critical condition, one child was shot.

Sunday at 12:02pm ·  · Comment · Share

• 
  
• • 
    

    Ain Roost 
    

    There has to be some accountability for the hateful, bigoted, violent irresponsible rhetoric that people like Palin and Kelley put out there. Kelley having a campaign event AT A SHOOTING RANGE and advertising it with "Get on TARGET for Victory in November," "Help REMOVE Gabriel Giffords from office" and "SHOOT A FULLY AUTOMATIC M16."
    I mean, really...put a target on this person...let's remove her...and here's an automatic weapon to practice your shooting with??? How ridiculous does it have to get

    
    

    Sunday at 2:27pm · 
  • 
    

    Mark Ring 
    

    What we might think after the fact is one thing....but no one brought this up as objectionable prior to one lunatic acting out his private rage. Let's remember personal accountability here. What the right wing did here metaphorically is no worse than what some (emphasis on some) factions of the Black Power Movement in the 60's and Islamic extremists of today advocated *literally*. So if we're going to hold one side accountable for their hyperbole we need to hold the other side accountable for their specific instructions. Fair?

    
    

    Sunday at 4:36pm · 
  • 
    

    Ain Roost 
    

    Absolutely Mark. To the exgtent that Black Power rhetoric advocated violence it was wrong. And the extent to which Islamic extremism advocates violence it is also wrong. And the "one lunatic that acting out his rage" is clearly personally responsible for his actions. We don't know the full story yet, but even if he is psychotic, for everyone else's protection at least his freedom is gone, probably for the rest of his life. And after making threats to kill someone the system that allowed him to get and keep a weapon is also partly responsible. And people like Palin and Kelley who implicitly encourage violence bear some significant responsibility for the possible impact their irresponsible rhetoric may have on inciting" lunatics" to violence.

    
    

    Sunday at 6:42pm · 
  • 
    

    Mark Ring 
    

    Agreed Ain - here is a link that provides more information on the shooter. The only point of yours that I would quibble with is regarding the system allowing him to purchase a gun. He bought the gun legally and while passing a FBI background check, well before he threatened to kill anyone (and I haven't seen anything yet where he actually threatened anyone, just a general distrust of the government).
    
    But take a look at this news report and see what you think. There is no evidence that this guy ever saw any of the rhetoric. It looks like his disturbances go much deeper than just the Republicans or even the Tea Party:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/09/arizona-suspected-gunman-no-stranger-to-trouble/print

    
    

    Sunday at 6:50pm · 
  • 
    

    Wes Chester Ahem... the woman gunned down actually did protest the "gunsight metaphor" as being, unseemly and dangerous during the campagin. Nobody could be sadder to be right. And the RIGHT is clearly caught with the logical extrapolation of the hate speak it mainlines like heroin. Tell me , what would a crazy person listening to Democratic rhetoric do? Single payer healthcare reform. Clearly apples v.s. grenades here. I stand ready to take the responsibility for the apples. How 'bout you Glen Beck?
  • 
  • Mark Ring 
    

    OK, Wes....Amy and I have been friends for almost 35 years (which is amazing considering she's 29....) and I certainly extend the same level of respect to Ain. So I'm not going to devolve an otherwise civil discussion into our own versions ...See More
  • 
  • Peter Riordan 
    

    No doubt his disturbances go deeper! Way deeper, I'd suspect and expect findings to prove.
    
    The thing I find disturbing is that we know there are a lot of folk who at times, maybe rarely, maybe periodically, maybe randomly are walikng around with 3lbs of force on a 4 lb trigger looking for a "cross to climb up on" . . .beginning to resemble the Appian Way out there . . . What can we do? Stop expecting elected officials to solve our problems might be a good start. i agree 100% with Mark about pushing this into any "taking sides" box. Seriously, no need to politicize, by same token no need to give rhetorical spewage and political sewage a pass. We all have to take responsibilty . . . afterall " Who killed the Kennedys?"

    
    

    Monday at 11:14am · 
  • 
    

    Amy Sandberg Giffords brother-in-law is commander of the Space Staition. He lead NASA in a moment of silence today and said the earth looks peaceful from where he is. And so I offer this song :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5_YAj9lCQc
    

    Monday at 11:17am ·  ·  1 person
  • 
    

    Mark Ring 
    

    Peter - agree about the "3 pounds of force" analogy. It is unfortunate and sad that 97% of the population would have to watch what they said and did on account of the 3% who just aren't wired correctly.
    
    I think part of what is happening here, as it has in many other situations, is that sometimes harsh rhetoric has always been a part of American politics. The difference has been that in recent years the rise of technology has put every word and deed under a microscope if you are any sort of public person (and sometimes if you're not). And let's face it - unfortunately, bad news, embarrassing news, and news that publications can use to further their own views sell better than feel-good items. Very few people are out there trying to highlight the good side of anything. That applies to both the Democrats and Republicans.
    
    So who takes the first step? What is the first step? Do we all worry about what we say lest it inflame someone who is unbalanced? Or do we go about our lives as we always do and continue to punish those individuals that do wrong?

    
    

    Monday at 11:31am · 
  • 
    

    Peter Riordan 
    

    Great discussion by the way.
    Thank you for the reflective minutes there, Amy.
    Too true that it seems that way "from a distance," and only from a distance too often.
    
    I'm way to libertine on the free speech thing, at same I am an advocate of "if you say it you own it." I don't believe "free speech" ever was meant to serve as a "free pass" for irresponsible speech, especially from those in positions of authority. My "virgin ears" haven't been scathed or exposed to anything they haven't heard before.
    
    I'm not surprised that people are acting insanely here, there & everywhere. We live in a very cold and violent world, which looks so damn beautiful from a distance.
    
    I hear the Hawaii ticket counter calling . . maybe New Zealand, . . maybe a one-way backpacking venture . . . gotta' get some distance. . .
    Peace, love & understanding,
    Out!

    
    

    Monday at 5:19pm · 
  • 
    

    Ain Roost 
    

    We do live in a world that is sometimes cold and violent and looks so damn beautiful from a distance...and it often looks so damn beautiful up close too. Often it depends on where we look, and how we look and which eyes we look with...as Thoreau said "It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see."
    I guess we should also think about which mouth we speak with. Do we want our words to add to the hate and ugliness in the world or do we want to add to the truth and beauty? And what is the impact of our words? In some ways our words as well as our actions will always affect the world around us, like a stone dropped into the water, there will be ripples, for better or worse. We can add to the total amount of hatred in the world or the total amount of love, if only drop by drop.
    
    I think we can do more than just punish those individuals who do wrong. I think we can educate and I think we can work to understand where anger and hatred come from. They are almost inevitably always taught by word and deed. People that have been abused and treated violently often (but not always) carry on that tradition.
    
    So where do we break the chain? What can we as individuals who purport to know better do? Maybe we can be one of those individuals who might make a difference in the life of someone who has been abused by showing them something else, some kindness, some understanding, something different at some critical point in their lives. And maybe tip the balance in just one particular situation. Who knows? Igotta believe it's worth continuing to try.

    
    

    Monday at 11:51pm ·  ·  1 person
  • 
    

    Peter Riordan 
    

    You're right on the money there, Ain. Thanks for tossin' the life preserver.
    
    How did this guy (Loughner) slip away? Was he irretrievable? Seems a hi-percetage of the time it is people who "we" let slip away that committ acts of violence. I do mean "we!" Who else is going to help? I believe, as you point out that it is us, as individuals, who can make a difference, who can "toss out that life preserver" for an overboard shipmate. I wonder if anybody did in this cse and if Loughner just "flailed" at the rescue attempts and was given up on? What then?
    
    There's no "saving the world". but we can make a difference by simple acts of empathy and kindness . . . listening without judging . . . leading by example without alienating . . .
    
    Trudging on,
    P

    
    

    21 hours ago ·