[Vision2020] evil in Tucson

Mon Jan 10 15:21:24 PST 2011

Andreas,

I know you were replying to Gary but I wanted to make a quick comment
about your first point. I simply don't get the "he's just nuts"
explanation, or why it's relevant to issues like whether Palin or the
right bears any responsibility for the incident. I made some of these
points in a post to Roger but maybe I can make them more clearly now.
Consider a few cases.

Person A asks person B to rob a convenience store. He knows that
person B is insane and if he tell him that by robbing the store he'll
go to heaven that person B will do it. Person B robs the store. Does A
bear any responsibility? I think clearly "yes."

Change the case to one of murder, where now person B murders another
person. Again, does A bear any responsibility? Yes.

Of course, neither of these cases are analogous to the Tucson
shooting. NO ONE thinks that Palin, or anyone, told Laughner to kill
anyone. But an analogous case is easy enough to devise.

Person A talks to a group of people over a long period of time,
continually saying that all of them would go to heaven if they robbed
convenience stores and split the profits with him. Most of the people
ignore him and think his nuts but among the group is one insane man,
person B. Person B robs a convenience store. Does A bear any
responsibility for this? I think he does.

Change the story so that now B kills someone and I think A bears some
responsibility, too.

The main point is whether or not B is insane seems to be irrelevant to
whether or not A bears some responsibility for his actions. You can
change these stories in a variety of ways and I don't think A's level
of responsibility increases or decreases whether or not B is insane.
Maybe Palin bears no responsibility for the tragic events in Tucson
but I think whether she does or not, Laughner's insanity has nothing
to do with it.

One last point. The issue of Palin's responsibility, if there is any,
is somewhat confused because we're thinking of responsibility here as
an all or nothing thing. I agree that the idea that Palin is AS
responsible as Laughner is absurd. She didn't kill anyone. Nor
(perhaps) did she have good reason to expect that her (reckless)
behavior would lead to these events (although now it seems that she
might have some reason to expect this in the future). She is not
guilty of murder, or even accessory to murder, or anything that
severe.

The question should be whether she, and the broader over the top right
wing rhetoric that demonizes all of those who fail to share their
narrow world view, bear some small bit of responsibility for those
tragic events? Not whether they did it or are guilty of a crime but
whether the climate that has been created by radical rightwing
rhetoric played some role in those events? I don't think it is absurd
to say "Yes." I think in a world where insane people have easy access
to firearms, over the top rhetoric should be strongly discouraged.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> As it happens, I mostly agree with you here. The rhetoric had nothing
> to do with the shooting; Laughner was just nuts. However, I think
> Conor Friedersdorf makes a good point here:
>
> "Since Barack Obama took office, prominent voices on the right have
> called him an ally of Islamist radicals in their Grand Jihad against
> America, a radical Kenyan anti-colonialist, a man who pals around with
> terrorists and used a financial crisis to deliberately weaken America,
> an usurper who was born abroad and isn’t even eligible to be
> president, a guy who has somehow made it so that it’s okay for black
> kids to beat up white kids on buses, etc. I haven’t even touched on
> the conspiracy theories of Glenn Beck. The birthers excepted, the
> people making these chargers are celebrated by movement conservatives
> – they’re given book deals, awards, and speaking engagements.
>
> If all of these charges were true, a radicalized citizenry would be an
> appropriate response. But even the conservatives who defend Palin,
> Beck, Limbaugh, D’Souza, McCarthy, and so many others don’t behave as
> if they believe all the nonsense they assert. The strongest case
> against these people isn’t that their rhetoric inspires political
> violence. It’s that they frequently utter indefensible nonsense. The
> problem isn’t their tone. It’s that the substance of what they’re
> saying is so blinkered that it isn’t even taken seriously by their
> ideological allies (even if they’re too cowardly, mercenary or team
> driven to admit as much)."
>
> http://theamericanscene.com/2011/01/10/tone-versus-substance
>
> -- ACS
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>> I assume that by violent rhetoric you would include comments made by those
>> who are the last word in "viable presidential candidate."
>>
>> "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in
>> Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly
>> like a good brawl..."
>>
>> I guess from now on instead of targeting voters, candidates, or positions we
>> will speak of humanely capturing them to returned to a safe area where they
>> can live out the remained of their lives surrounded by love and comfort.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>>> Furthermore . . .
>>>
>>> The ONLY person that should be held directly responsible for the murders
>>> in Tuscon is Jared Loughner.
>>>
>>> However . . .
>>>
>>> The grandizing by Phelps of such heinous murderous activity as that
>>> committed by Loughner takes on an even worse stench when coupled with the
>>> "target map" and comments like "Don't retread, reload" and "Second
>>> amendment remedies" feed the imbalanced minds of those like Jared Loughner
>>> with a false sense of patriotism when they commit such acts.
>>>
>>> Certainly, average, well-adjust people can easily distinguish between
>>> controversial commentary and violent rhetoric, but . . .
>>>
>>> How many Jared Loughners are we to confront before sources of such
>>> rhetoric are called in to account?
>>>
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, January 10, 2011 9:47 am, keely emerinemix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It took all of five minutes, Visionaires, for my conscience to to remind
>>>> me that describing even someone as evil as Fred Phelps as less than human
>>>> was wrong of me.  I believe his works to be those of an evil man,
>>>> something I can't imagine anyone not named "Phelps" would disagree with
>>>> and something I think Scripture would affirm, but I used language in
>>>> anger
>>>> that I have criticized in others, and I'm sorry for it.
>>>>
>>>> I trust that if Dale Courtney uses my initial Phelps post on his blog,
>>>> he'll have the integrity to refer to this one  as well.
>>>>
>>>> Keely
>>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: kjajmix1 at msn.com
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:35:11 -0800
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] evil in Tucson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My brother in Tucson says that unmitigated barbarian evil in the form of
>>>> the Rev. Fred Phelps will descend later this week on the city as the
>>>> first
>>>> victims of the shooting will be released from the hospital and funerals
>>>> for the dead will begin.  Phelps will be praising God for the massacre
>>>> and
>>>> lauding the work of Jared Lee Loughner.
>>>>
>>>> The description of Phelps above is mine; my angry and distraught
>>>> brother's
>>>> words were utterly unfit for quoting, just as Phelps' is utterly unfit to
>>>> claim the title "Reverend," or even the designation "human."
>>>>
>>>> Keely
>>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
>>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>
>>> - Unknown
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3371 - Release Date: 01/09/11
>> 23:34:00
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>