I personally find it troubling that it took less than thirty minutes after this atrocity took place for the fingerpointing and political scapegoating to ensue.
trenchant.
olbermann was one of the first out of the gates with his obnoxious, partisan framing of the issue. he is the last guy that should be talking about tamping down rhetoric.
I know it's popular for folks nestled in the pointless middle to shit on Olbermann, but that's some bullshit false equivalency right there.
"false equivalency" is one those weasel phrases msnbc uses to defend its shoddy record.
Speaking of shoddy records, why don't you go back to stalking Bob Desperado.
Cite Olbermann inciting violence or step off.
amongst other things, he calls people the worst in the world on a daily basis. his rhetoric is over-heated, partisan, provocative and reckless. also, why would you try to personalize this issue?
And that's an incitement to violence?
i find it simply an incitement that coarsens and polarizes the discussion and spreads intolerance. he is the last person who should be preaching about over-heated, irresponsible rhetoric of others.
its way too early in the game to be pointing fingers and trying to fashion this into a partisan issue.
btw- what is your phrase "pointless middle" supposed to mean?
Just to be clear, I'm not letting right wing talk radio off the hook. I'm just saying that we currently know very little about the shooter. Congressional maps with cross hairs and "vitrolic" radio hosts might not have even been on this guy's radar.
At the very least he seems to have held anti-immigration views. Both the judge and the congresswoman are on what the right sees as the wrong side of that issue.
Maybe that's just a big coincidence, and it's just an accident that it happened in Arizona, which is immigrant-bashing Ground Zero.
I think the point to be made is the making of the map with crosshairs is wrong. Even if it has nothing to do with this shooter. The fact that Palin's people took it down so fast and are now trying to scrub it from the internet shows that even they know this is bad.
And while it might be wrong to tie palin and the shooter together in such a way without knowing the deal. Question should still be allowed to be asked.
Example:
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking."
i find it simply an incitement that coarsens and polarizes the discussion and spreads intolerance. he is the last person who should be preaching about over-heated, irresponsible rhetoric of others.
its way too early in the game to be pointing fingers and trying to fashion this into a partisan issue.
btw- what is your phrase "pointless middle" supposed to mean?
The "pointless middle" (it was my phrase) are people who seem to think that having an actual opinion is pointless, regardless of the merits of that position. False equivalency is what they base this on.
And seriously, Olbermann is "the last person" who should be talking about this? Behind Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and dozens of other wingnuts? What makes Olbermann "the last person"? Or are you just using overheated rhetoric?
DOR: you may not agree with everything in this article but i think its a decent point to start a discussion:
Should We Blame Sarah Palin for Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting?
Already, people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin and her "target map" for fostering the tragedy in Arizona???but Howard Kurtz says military terminology has been part of politics for ages.
I hate to say this, but the blame game is already under way.
It began within hours of Saturday's horrifying shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and nearly 20 others, even before the gunman was identified.
One of the first to be dragged into this sickening ritual of guilt by association: Sarah Palin. Last March, the former Alaska governor posted a map on her Facebook page with crosshair targets representing 20 Democratic lawmakers she was singling out for defeat after they voted for President Obama's health care plan. One of them was Giffords. Palin, who touts her caribou-hunting heritage, also tweeted, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!"
This kind of rhetoric is highly unfortunate. The use of the crosshairs was dumb. But it's a long stretch from such excessive language and symbols to holding a public official accountable for a murderer who opens fire on a political gathering and kills a half-dozen people, including a 9-year-old girl.
On her Facebook page, Palin offered her "sincere condolences" to Giffords and the others who were shot, saying that "on behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."
This isn't about a nearly year-old Sarah Palin map; it's about a lone nutjob who doesn't value human life.
Liberals were quick to denounce Palin at the time of the map posting. And after Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized that same month, the Democratic congresswoman told MSNBC, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is, the way she has it depicted it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."
Giffords had every right to ask Palin and others to tone it down. But is it now fair for the rest of us to tie Palin to the accused gunman, Jared Lee Loughner?
Let's be honest: Journalists often use military terminology in describing campaigns. We talk about the air war, the bombshells, targeting politicians, knocking them off, candidates returning fire or being out of ammunition. So we shouldn't act shocked when politicians do the same thing. Obviously, Palin should have used dots or asterisks on her map. But does anyone seriously believe she was trying to incite violence?
Palin seemed to pull back in a subsequent campaign appearance for her former running mate, John McCain. "We know violence isn't the answer," she said. "When we take up our arms, we're talking about our vote."
But she also mocked the criticism as politically correct, using her Facebook platform to apply the same language to basketball's Final Four: "To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next season's targets! From the shot across the bow???the first second's tip-off???your leaders will be in the enemy's crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics."
A fellow Arizona Democrat, Rep. Raul Grijalva, said that the Palin ???apparatus??? shares responsibility for creating a climate of extremism. "Both Gabby and I were targeted in the apparatus in that cycle [saying] these people are 'enemies,?????? Grivjalva told Mother Jones???s David Corn. He added: ???The Palin express better look at their tone and their tenor.???
And MSNBC's Keith Olbermann made the link even more explicit on Saturday night: "If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics."
Of course, some rhetoric is deliberately incendiary. U.S. District Judge John Roll, one of those shot and killed in Tucson, had ruled in 2009 that a lawsuit by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher could go forward. Afterward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said that talk radio shows fanned the flames and prompted hundreds of calls to the judge, some of them threatening. "They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales told the Arizona Republic.
The act of transforming tragedy into political fodder has deep roots in American history. After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, President Bill Clinton attacked "the purveyors of hatred and division" for "reckless speech," saying the nation's airwaves were too often used "to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate, they leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."
Rush Limbaugh, who had tangled with Clinton, responded that "liberals intend to use this tragedy for their own political gain." He blamed "many in the mainstream media" for "irresponsible attempts to categorize and demonize those who had nothing to do with this."
When George Tiller was murdered at a Kansas church in 2009, liberal critics savaged Bill O'Reilly for having attacked the abortion doctor more than two dozen times, labeling him "Tiller the Baby Killer." The Fox News host called the criticism "nonsense," saying "evidence shows that Tiller was a gross human rights violator. Yet, because most media people are pro-choice, they looked away. Now they are trying to justify their apathy by attacking us."
Last summer, after an unemployed carpenter named Byron Williams shot and injured two California police officers, we learned that he had told investigators that he wanted "to start a revolution" by "killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." Some commentators blamed Glenn Beck, who had repeatedly attacked the obscure foundation, which calls for economic justice???especially after Williams's mother told the San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-felon watched television news and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."
And here we go again in Arizona, as people with political agendas unleash their attacks even before the victims of this senseless shooting have been buried. I find it depressing beyond belief.
This isn't about a nearly year-old Sarah Palin map; it's about a lone nutjob who doesn't value human life. It would be nice if we briefly put aside partisan differences and came together with sympathy and support for Gabby Giffords and the other victims, rather than opening rhetorical fire ourselves.
I think the point to be made is the making of the map with crosshairs is wrong. Even if it has nothing to do with this shooter. The fact that Palin's people took it down so fast and are now trying to scrub it from the internet shows that even they know this is bad.
And while it might be wrong to tie palin and the shooter together in such a way without knowing the deal. Question should still be allowed to be asked.
Example:
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking."
IMO, that's a fair question to ask.
Exactly. And going back 7 years and finding some Democratic site that used bullseyes (and not even firing range type targets, but generic bullseyes) to refer to states, not individuals, and saying "both sides do it" is another example of false equivalency.
Questions can of course be asked, but we are way past that point. By evening time yesterday, the bloggers, cable news hosts, AND the local sheriff were blaming radio talk show hosts. The map crosshairs is, I believe, a non issue. That imagery has been used by PACs of all political persuasions since the dawn of mass media.
Questions can of course be asked, but we are way past that point. By evening time yesterday, the bloggers, cable news hosts, AND the local sheriff were blaming radio talk show hosts. The map crosshairs is, I believe, a non issue. That imagery has been used by PACs of all political persuasions since the dawn of mass media.
Yeah? Let's see some. And let's see the equivalent of this on the left:
"Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly"
Exactly. And going back 7 years and finding some Democratic site that used bullseyes (and not even firing range type targets, but generic bullseyes) to refer to states, not individuals, and saying "both sides do it" is another example of false equivalency.[/quot
Sorry. My last post was in response to this quote.
Some leftist somewhere said Bush was Hitler once, so that's totally the same as Sarah Palin saying Obama is a socialist who's "hellbent on destroying America"!
Hold up: it wasn't "some random leftist" comparing Bush with Hitler. Bush became the biggest political bogeyman in at least a generation (most of it deserved, in my opinion, given his record).
For the record, I think calling Obama a socialist is fucking ridiculous. But at the level of national discourse, I think it's completely fair to say that the left excoriated Bush in hyperbolic ways that are similar to how Obama's been treated by those on the right bent on making him seem like an extremist.
I'm not saying 2011 and 2004 are "the same". But it's not idiocy to point out the parallels.
Howard Kurtz is the Wilt Chamberlain of false equivalency. And his major purpose in life is to make excuses for right-wing politicians.
that's merely an ad hominem and irrelevant attack that completely fails to deal with any of the substance of his arguments.
It's not an ad hominem, it's an opinion of his career based on a familiarity with his work. And his arguments are stupid. No one is directly blaming Palin for the shooting. They're blaming her for being an irresponsible douchebag.
And that she is. Even she seems to have realized that maybe, just maybe, she went a little too far.
But, but, but, she's not the last person! Keith Olbermann is!
Questions can of course be asked, but we are way past that point. By evening time yesterday, the bloggers, cable news hosts, AND the local sheriff were blaming radio talk show hosts. The map crosshairs is, I believe, a non issue. That imagery has been used by PACs of all political persuasions since the dawn of mass media.
Yeah? Let's see some. And let's see the equivalent of this on the left:
"Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly"
That is, of course, deplorable. My point is that we don't even know if the shooter was aware of this rhetoric. His beliefs (at least those that he made public) are at best disjointed. Some times assassins don't have political motives. John hinckly (sp?) was trying to impress Jody foster when he shot Reagan.
Some leftist somewhere said Bush was Hitler once, so that's totally the same as Sarah Palin saying Obama is a socialist who's "hellbent on destroying America"!
Hold up: it wasn't "some random leftist" comparing Bush with Hitler. Bush became the biggest political bogeyman in at least a generation (most of it deserved, in my opinion, given his record).
For the record, I think calling Obama a socialist is fucking ridiculous. But at the level of national discourse, I think it's completely fair to say that the left excoriated Bush in hyperbolic ways that are similar to how Obama's been treated by those on the right bent on making him seem like an extremist.
I'm not saying 2011 and 2004 are "the same". But it's not idiocy to point out the parallels.
It's idiocy to claim equivalency, unless you can point to a Democratic contender for the presidency saying Bush was a Hitler wanna-be who was hellbent on destroying America.
The point is that it isn't just bloggers and so on on the right who are saying these things. It's elected officials and major Republican party figures. The notion that there is equivalency is just a complete joke.
Hell, it even resulted in Republicans like Joe Wilson and Samuel Alito being unable to control themselves while Obama was addressing Congress. "You lie!" "That's not true!"
If you've got 10,000 pounds of elephant shit on one side of a scale and 10 pounds of donkey shit on the other, it's not gonna balance. But the false equivalency crowd are telling us it does.
Minor point: I don't think you can use Hinkley as an analogy. His was a relatively precise (well, except for Brady) assassination of a single target as opposed to a rampage killing with directed targets but also the intention of inflicting collateral damage.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the gov't used this event as the impetus to move in and regulate (censor) the media.
You lost me here.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Minor point: I don't think you can use Hinkley as an analogy. His was a relatively precise (well, except for Brady) assassination of a single target as opposed to a rampage killing with directed targets but also the intention of inflicting collateral damage.
Fair enough. My point is that it's still way too early to ascribe an ideology to this guy.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
Howard dean is the chair of the DNC.
I don't want this to detract from my main point. That's why I prefaced it as potentially paranoid. BUT, with the FCC going forward on net neutrality, is it really inconceivable that the government would view the news media as it's next frontier for regulation?
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
President Obama, also, has publicly chastised fox news on several occasions.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
President Obama, also, has publicly chastised fox news on several occasions.
OMG!
It's a short step from that to complete government censorship!
And by the way, Howard Dean is not the DNC chair and hasn't been since 2009.
This is really all that needs to be said. Let's keep the armchair psychology and political science out of it.
I've looked over the guys lunatic rantings and didn't see any mention or connection to the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, Glenn Beck or Sam Carr's black labrador retreiver.
This circle jerk of finger pointing at your favorite target is really silly and telling at this point.
well at least all of the rhetoric spewed out in this thread hasn't taken the attention away from the actual tragedy/story itself in a vain attempt to show how worldly, smart, and politically savvy the members of this board are.
well at least all of the rhetoric spewed out in this thread hasn't taken the attention away from the actual tragedy/story itself in a vain attempt to show how worldly, smart, and politically savvy the members of this board are.
You mean like you just did for yourself right there? Sorry if my reflections don't meet your lofty standards of behavior.
I just read that the 9 year old girl killed yesterday is the granddaughter of Dallas Green, former Phillies manager. It seems worth mentioning somehow.
Comments
i find it simply an incitement that coarsens and polarizes the discussion and spreads intolerance. he is the last person who should be preaching about over-heated, irresponsible rhetoric of others.
its way too early in the game to be pointing fingers and trying to fashion this into a partisan issue.
btw- what is your phrase "pointless middle" supposed to mean?
At the very least he seems to have held anti-immigration views. Both the judge and the congresswoman are on what the right sees as the wrong side of that issue.
Maybe that's just a big coincidence, and it's just an accident that it happened in Arizona, which is immigrant-bashing Ground Zero.
Maybe.
And while it might be wrong to tie palin and the shooter together in such a way without knowing the deal. Question should still be allowed to be asked.
Example:
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking."
IMO, that's a fair question to ask.
The "pointless middle" (it was my phrase) are people who seem to think that having an actual opinion is pointless, regardless of the merits of that position. False equivalency is what they base this on.
And seriously, Olbermann is "the last person" who should be talking about this? Behind Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and dozens of other wingnuts? What makes Olbermann "the last person"? Or are you just using overheated rhetoric?
Maybe you're "the last person."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-08/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-dont-blame-sarah-palin/2/
Exactly. And going back 7 years and finding some Democratic site that used bullseyes (and not even firing range type targets, but generic bullseyes) to refer to states, not individuals, and saying "both sides do it" is another example of false equivalency.
Howard Kurtz is the Wilt Chamberlain of false equivalency. And his major purpose in life is to make excuses for right-wing politicians.
You lost me here.
Yeah? Let's see some. And let's see the equivalent of this on the left:
"Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly"
http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-jesse-kelly-held-june-event-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-to-get-on-target-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/
that's merely an ad hominem and irrelevant attack which completely fails to deal with any of the substance of his arguments.
Sorry. My last post was in response to this quote.
Hold up: it wasn't "some random leftist" comparing Bush with Hitler. Bush became the biggest political bogeyman in at least a generation (most of it deserved, in my opinion, given his record).
For the record, I think calling Obama a socialist is fucking ridiculous. But at the level of national discourse, I think it's completely fair to say that the left excoriated Bush in hyperbolic ways that are similar to how Obama's been treated by those on the right bent on making him seem like an extremist.
I'm not saying 2011 and 2004 are "the same". But it's not idiocy to point out the parallels.
It's not an ad hominem, it's an opinion of his career based on a familiarity with his work. And his arguments are stupid. No one is directly blaming Palin for the shooting. They're blaming her for being an irresponsible douchebag.
And that she is. Even she seems to have realized that maybe, just maybe, she went a little too far.
But, but, but, she's not the last person! Keith Olbermann is!
Completely agreed here. And also agreed that Olbermann isn't remotely equivalent.
That said, dude is part of the amplifying effect. Maybe not "the most" but let's not pretend he's not helping crank shit up.
It's idiocy to claim equivalency, unless you can point to a Democratic contender for the presidency saying Bush was a Hitler wanna-be who was hellbent on destroying America.
The point is that it isn't just bloggers and so on on the right who are saying these things. It's elected officials and major Republican party figures. The notion that there is equivalency is just a complete joke.
Hell, it even resulted in Republicans like Joe Wilson and Samuel Alito being unable to control themselves while Obama was addressing Congress. "You lie!" "That's not true!"
If you've got 10,000 pounds of elephant shit on one side of a scale and 10 pounds of donkey shit on the other, it's not gonna balance. But the false equivalency crowd are telling us it does.
Like I said, this is a bit paranoid, but in recent months Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others have made public statements suggesting that it's time the government step in and "do something" about the media. Now we have a major incident that was almost instantly blamed on right wing media.
Its really not that big of a stretch.
Sure, and there's a place for ramping things up, and a way to do it without using violent imagery directed at the other side.
Olbermann is loud and egotistic, but if he's been using violent imagery I've missed it.
BTW, is he even still doing the "Worst Persons" bit? I thought he'd stopped that a while back.
Fair enough. My point is that it's still way too early to ascribe an ideology to this guy.
Since neither guy holds elected office (or is ever likely to again), it's a big stretch.
Howard dean is the chair of the DNC.
I don't want this to detract from my main point. That's why I prefaced it as potentially paranoid. BUT, with the FCC going forward on net neutrality, is it really inconceivable that the government would view the news media as it's next frontier for regulation?
This is really all that needs to be said. Let's keep the armchair psychology and political science out of it.
OMG!
It's a short step from that to complete government censorship!
And by the way, Howard Dean is not the DNC chair and hasn't been since 2009.
I've looked over the guys lunatic rantings and didn't see any mention or connection to the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, Glenn Beck or Sam Carr's black labrador retreiver.
This circle jerk of finger pointing at your favorite target is really silly and telling at this point.
You mean like you just did for yourself right there? Sorry if my reflections don't meet your lofty standards of behavior.
I just read that the 9 year old girl killed yesterday is the granddaughter of Dallas Green, former Phillies manager. It seems worth mentioning somehow.