House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

As far as my "constant whining attitude regarding sports" is concerned, I'm sorry that disturbs you.

BillW wrote:

If it weren't true, why is the entire righty nation so paranoid about it? Where there is smoke there is fire.......

This bit of illogic has been repeated often enough in this thread to be worth refuting specifically:

No, an angry response to an accusation does not make it true.

"On Extreme Right And Left" Ctd

11 Jan 2011 11:50 am

This goes back to my debate with Pejman. David Corn insists that the difference between right and left rhetorical extremism is that the right has "institutionalized their side's craziness." Juan Cole is blunt. George Packer concedes that George W. Bush was the subject of vile liberal rhetoric, but notes the unmissable scale of the difference:

Quote:

Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

The right and the left both have intemperate voices. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?

And your explanation for my and David's association was incomplete.

On Thursday, an Army psychiatrist, clad in a military uniform, allegedly sprayed bullets inside a medical building, killing 13 people and wounding at least 30. The suspected gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, has counseled scores of soldiers suffering post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. His victims on Thursday were men and women who were preparing to deploy to the battle zones or had returned from there.

In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.

President Obama was right when he told Americans, “we don’t know all the answers yet” and cautioned everyone against “jumping to conclusions.”

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.” Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal. . . .

Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.

Unverified reports, some from his family members, suggest that Major Hasan complained of harassment by fellow soldiers for being a Muslim, that he hoped to get out of a deployment to Afghanistan, that he sought a discharge from the Army and that he opposed the American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Al Franken would bore someone to death before they got a chance to kill him

Instead they floated this possible [fill in the blank]

It's interesting that you've referenced the LIRR Massacre. There's no reason to believe you are citing it in anyway other than its relation to gun control, but it does lead to interesting comparisons.

From what I can tell, Colin Ferguson was almost as insane as Jared Lee Loughner, and he was motivated in some way by racial paranoia.

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”

Here it seems to me are the elements of such an answer.

(1) Take the accusation seriously. That does not mean you accept the accusation, nor even that you explicitly acknowledge it. But understand why people – not all of them necessarily out to get you – might feel negatively about this past action in light of current events.

(2) Express real grief and sincere compassion. “My condolences are offered” is not the language of someone whose heart is much troubled.

(3) Be visible. They’re laying flowers at the congressional office of Gabrielle Giffords. Any reason you can’t join them?

(4) Join the conversation. You have often complained about out-of-bounds personal comments directed toward you (eg, David Letterman’s). Now try to show toward others the same empathy that you demand from others. Innocent as you feel yourself to be, try to imagine how it must have felt to be Giffords during this past campaign season: guns showing up at her rallies, her offices vandalized, death threats – and your map as the finishing touch. Imagine how her family must feel. Speak to them.

(5) Challenge your opponents. In the past hours, many people have cited President Obama’s (borrowed) line about bringing a knife to a gun fight. They have a point! At the same time as you publicly commit to raise your game, invite your political opponents to raise theirs. Instead of deflecting the blame, share it.

(6) Raise the issue of mental health. Remember how you were going to be an advocate for children with special needs? Can’t more be done to intervene to help potentially dangerous schizophrenics – and to protect society from the risk of violence? (Read this by Dr. Sally Satel to start your thinking on the subject. ) The best way to underscore that Loughner was not motivated by Tea Party ideology is to remind them of what did impel him.

But, what's very clear, is the fact that two very unstable individuals, Loughner and Ferguson, both with histories of disruptive, unstable, and menacing behaviors, were able to elude the mental health system so that no red flags were raised when they legally purchased their guns with high powered ammunition clips. Maybe that's the issue we should really be focusing on now.

I still like Frum's advice

But what's especially interesting in the wake of Saturday's events in Tucson is that much of the right is implicitly acknowledging the problem within its ranks. As Kevin Drum explained, "I don't really blame conservatives for being upset at liberals trying pin the blame for the Giffords shooting on them, but the furious defensiveness of their counterattack says all that needs to be said about how uncomfortable they are with their own recent history."

Exactly. At a certain level, conservatives are aware of the fact that they've been going too far for too long, and they seem quite concerned this week that the light will shine on them in a very unflattering way. It's why they're not only making ridiculous efforts to paint Jared Lee Loughner as some kind of liberal, they're also hoping to avoid the entire conversation about rhetorical excesses in the political discourse altogether.

On Sunday, for example, when asked about Sarah Palin's crosshairs, Senate GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) concluded on CNN, "I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it." For her part, Palin has practically been in hiding the past few days.

It's as if a deliberate strategy that paid electoral dividends but hurt the country is catching up with the right, all at once. It's likely the right has a justifiable fear: that the public will pause to look at a bigger picture -- of the mainstreaming of Republican extremism, of violence-related campaign rhetoric, of hate-talk in GOP media -- and see just how ugly it is.

But if they're looking for a coherent defense, "both sides" isn't going to cut it. In Democratic circles, liberal extremists can't get any establishment attention at all. Members of Congress won't return their phone calls or even be seen in public with them. On the right, however, there's practically nothing a right-wing extremist can say or do to be exiled from polite company.

There's a clear and impermeable line between the progressive mainstream and the left fringe. The line between the Republican Party/conservative movement and the far-right fringe barely exists. Whereas Dems kept the fringe at arm's length, Republicans embrace the fringe with both arms.

Both sides have nutjobs; only one side thinks their nutjobs are sane.