Nine days have passed, and the willful blindness hasn't even slowed down yet. Besides the total absence of even the glimmer of personal responsibility that Senator McCain and I have evinced, we learn from all this that the right lives in a perpetual state of victimhood.
We learn that the right doesn't even recognize the irony of its claim of being unfairly blamed for the violence of others, when it has spent the last several years doing exactly that to Muslims — particularly American Muslims. We also learn that the right can simultaneously insist no political party or inclination can be blamed for Tucson — while it itself blames the Democratic party and the left, for Tucson.
We learn that the Right does not understand that if you — if we— foment a political environment in which politics are to be settled by violence, or the threat of violence, or in a rhetorical tide of violent imagery, it no longer matters what those politics specifically are, or if the hearer even understands your politics or agrees with your politics — he may hear only the permission to be violent.
And ultimately we learn — especially from Mrs. Palin's foolishness — this template of what the right would do in an actual open-and-shut slam dunk case in which a partisan of the right attempted to kill one of the left. The right would blame that victim blame him or her for not having brought enough security. Or for not having brought a gun.
"...when you saturate the air with hate you cannot control who breathes it in," Dan from Pruning Shears explains in his post about the Arizona massacre. Take a few minutes to read his post, but I'll summarize his insightful points about advertising as best I can.
Advertising works. That's why Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Apple and everybody else advertises when they have a product to sell. In fact, they spend billions of dollars on advertising, often not even knowing which ad "sticks" and which is wasted. But it is a fact that increased spending on advertising will lead to increased sales of the product advertised.
And so when you look at the political climate in Arizona, the violent imagery used by Sarah Palin, the "Second Amendment remedies" suggested by Sharron Angle, the violent fantasies presented by Glenn Beck, and the Arizona Tea Party favorite who urged followers "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"... it becomes bloody obvious these people are advertising violence.
And it works -- even if you can't draw a straight line from any one advertisement to the reprehensible act -- it works.
So the "alleged" shooter, Jared Loughner is mentally ill? I have no doubt that he is. But that doesn't make the crime an "isolated incident." David Neweirt proposed there is a level of moral and ethical culpability when violent speech has the following features:
It is factually false, or so grossly distorted and misleading as to constitute functional falsity.
It holds certain targeted individuals or groups of people up for vilification and demonization.
It smears them with false or misleading information that depicts them in a degraded light.
It depicts them as either emblematic, or the actual source, of a significant problem or a major threat.
It leads its audience to conclude that the solution to the problem manifested by these people is their elimination.
Crazy talk incites crazy people.
I get the feeling that some people honestly believe that if we never find a direct connection between Loughner and any pundit's violent rhetoric, then somehow violent speech is vindicated, acceptable and righteous. It is not.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.
So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.
But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
— President Barack Obama, January 12, 2011.
I was going to post some snark about Palin reloading, but after hearing the President's speech -- he was at his best tonight -- I decided Palin wasn't worth my time or effort. If the President is calling for a different sort of conversation, I suppose I can give him that.
As I mentioned in my previous blog post, those despicable shitheads at Westboro Baptist church plan to picket the funerals of Arizona shooting victims -- including the youngest victim, Christina Green.
In response, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed emergency legislation barring protests within 300 feet of a funeral and within an hour from its beginning or end. Hell, this kind of restriction may not pass constitutional challenges, but hopefully it will allow the family to bury their nine year old child in peace!
There is one more line of defense though, and that's being provided by a counter-protest group using "angel action." Participants wear 8- by 10-foot "angel wings" to shield the mourners from the haters. It's a brilliant idea and I hope it works out peacefully.
Another piece of hasty extremist-inspired legislation also grabbed my attention today. New York Rep. Peter King wants to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of government officials. It's great to see some representatives finally standing up to the NRA, and I understand the utmost need to protect our democratically elected government from extremists... but how about protecting all of us? I don't want a gun within a 1,000 feet of me either! In fact, Rep. King is reminding me of all the congressmen and women who rejected health care reform when they already have great health care for themselves.
But I don't expect anything better than meek and unenforceable gun legislation to make it past the NRA. You mess with them, and one of their proud supporters will design a commemorative automatic rifle especially for killing you.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry... It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included. And that's the sad thing of what's going on in America. Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office... Let me just say one thing, because people tend to poo-poo this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech. But it's not without consequences." — Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.
Apparently the message hasn't reached Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist church. They plan to picket the funerals of Arizona shooting victims.
"The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons — your Big Guns — to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win." — Sarah Palin, March 2010.
"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona." — Sarah Palin, January 8, 2011.
The 22 year-old shooter, Jared Loughner, has a recent history of paranoid rants regarding mind control, currency, the government, the Constitution, and grammar. I'll take a wild guess that he's a paranoid schizophrenic -- the exact type Palin and Sharron Angle were trying to incite with talk of "Second Amendment remedies." To me, it doesn't really matter whether Loughner was a follower of either of those vile women -- he delivered the result they wanted -- the result the "tea party" wanted.
And by the way, isn't Arizona one of those states where people can carry guns almost anywhere? Why did bystanders have to tackle Loughner to the ground? Gee, weren't they all supposed to be armed and ready to shoot him down? I guess it never works out that way in reality...
But in reality, sustained violent rhetoric always has a body count.
I simply didn't have the stamina to watch that bizarre Glenn Beck civil rights pantomime over the weekend. I've been out of it for a week, and I'm still under the influence of narcotics (see post below) and my prescription label says, "do not drive, operate heavy machinery, or watch Beck rallies." I'm sure some of you must have seen parts of it though?
So I ask you, did he cry? Did he tell us how much he loves his country? Did the Mormon shock-jock call for some kind of vague Christian revival? Was it self-indulgent? Was it pitiful?
I heard about the geese flying in a v-formation over the reflecting pool. I'm concluding from the many awe-struck replies on this YouTube video that most of Beck's fans flunked science, so let me share the secret: that's the way migrating geese fly!Shh!
And here's another little factoid: interpreting the will of the gods by studying the flight of birds is a pagan practice called augury. I think Beck's crowd reached a new level of confused religiosity.
Anyway, if there was a god who busies himself organizing geese, then those birds would have shat on Beck's head.
This whole self-anointed messiah act is exhausting. I try not to react to every idiot comment coming from Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc., but liberals cannot ignore these people into irrelevance. They preach to the choir and their choir is devout.
In fact if you follow Fox News and the Limbaugh/Hannity afternoon radio crew, this summer’s blowout has almost seemed like an intentional echo of the notorious Radio Rwanda broadcasts “warning” Hutus that they were about to be attacked and killed by conspiring Tutsis, broadcasts that led to massacres of Tutsis by Hutus acting in “self-defense.” A sample of some of the stuff we’ve seen and heard on the air this year:
On July 12, Glenn Beck implied that the Obama government was going to aid the New Black Panther Party in starting a race war, with the ultimate aim of killing white babies. "They want a race war. We must be peaceful people. They are going to poke, and poke, and poke, and our government is going to stand by and let them do it." He also said that "we must take the role of Martin Luther King, because I do not believe that Martin Luther King believed in, 'Kill all white babies.'"
CNN contributor and Redstate.com writer Erick Erickson, on the Panther mess: "Republican candidates nationwide should seize on this issue. The Democrats are giving a pass to radicals who advocate killing white kids in the name of racial justice and who try to block voters from the polls."
On July 6, the Washington Times columnist J. Christian Adams wrote an editorial insisting that "top [Obama] appointees have allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy," marking one of what would become many assertions by commentators that the Obama administration was no longer interested in protecting the rights of white people. "The Bush Civil Rights Division was willing to protect all Americans from racial discrimination,” Adams wrote. “During the Obama years, the Holder years, only some Americans will be protected."
July 12: Rush Limbaugh says Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “protect and represent” the New Black Panther party.
July 28: Rush says Supreme Court decision on 1070 strips Arizonans of their rights to defend themselves against an “invasion”: "I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to.” That same day, Rush says this: "Muslim terrorists are going to have a field day in Arizona. You cannot ask them where they're from. You cannot even act like we know where they're from. You cannot ask them for their papers. We can ask you for yours. Not them."
July 29: The Washington Times asks “Should Arizona Secede?” and says the Supreme Court "is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy” with the aim of creating a “socialist superstate.” The paper writes: "The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution."
July 29, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy continues the Radio Rwanda theme, saying, "If the feds won't protect the people and Governor Brewer can't protect her citizens, what are the people of Arizona supposed to do?"
Taibbi concludes that conservatives really don't want a race war, but driving frustrated/broke white suburbanites into a race-hatred frenzy happens to be good business.
So -- though I'm still unsure what "restoring honor" means -- I'm guessing the restoration is not complete... because then Beck's gig would be up.
Arizona’s SB1070 has been rightfully dubbed the "show me your papers" immigration law. The law, which was signed Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer, requires law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion."
Which, of course, raises the question "what the hell is reasonable suspicion?" Besides seeing somebody sneaking over the border, there's not much you can observe that is illegal immigrant behavior... unless you think speaking Spanish is suspicious. Or being brown. Supporters of the law will say you have nothing to worry about, as long as you carry your birth certificate with you.
Are birth certificates some kind of wingnut fetish lately? I'm not sure I want to touch that issue right now.
But what we do know is that many Latino and black Americans see this as a civil rights issue and are mobilizing against this draconian law. That can't be good news for Republicans.
Also, you'd think the common "tough on crime" stance would win over law enforcement officials. Well, more bad news, not this time:
Mr. Ramakrishnan says police departments don’t like SB1070 for two reasons.
One, it distracts police from their energies put into other crime and law and order. Two, immigrants are subsequently less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses if their legal status is going to be questioned.
“The biggest trend in policing in the past two decades has been community policing in which cops walk the local beat and spend much time gaining the trust of the people,” says Ramakrishnan. “This puts that trend entirely in jeopardy – it is a very big deal for them, indeed.”
And that two decade policing trend has brought a 19 percent drop in the violent crime rate in Arizona! See, the truth is that immigrants do not bring an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. However, shifting the role of police officers may backfire and reverse this positive change.
And since people seem to enjoy the chalkboard word games of Glenn Beck, let me close with one of my own: you can't spell "Arizona" without "Nazi."
