The Evil Plan

...or Joel Frost's Blog

Joel Frost

Joel Frost
Location
Astoria, New York, United States
Birthday
October 22
Bio
I am almost as insignificant as you.

MY RECENT POSTS

Joel Frost's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 13, 2011 4:24PM

Defending Sarah Palin

Rate: 8 Flag

     This past Saturday afternoon, I sat here on my couch and read various early accounts on the internet of the terrible event in Tucson, Arizona. Arizona House Representative Gabrielle Giffords had been shot, and there were reports that she had died. Fortunately, those reports turned out to be false. Others were killed, though, including a nine-year-old girl. A lone gunman had apparently decided to murder a public servant who was a Democrat, and had killed others in the process. Shit, I thought. It’s probably some Tea-Party type asshole. A Timothy McVeigh sort, who believed he could make some kind of political statement and effect change by murdering people, in particular a Democrat with some power in the political system. Consequences for the crimes he imagined the Government to have perpetrated on him and other true patriots, I supposed.

     Taking a break from the news, and curious to see how my friends and acquaintances were processing the information, I popped over to facebook, a place that I consider something of a town hall. Any major event will spur many comments by the 500 or so people I am connected to via the site, so of course I expected to see a reaction about this one. 

     I immediately noticed in my news feed a picture and comment made by a good friend. You’ve likely seen it by now; a map of the continental United States with crosshair-style targets in various spots, each representing the district of a House Democrat who had voted for “the health care bill” in 2008, their names listed below the map. One of the House Democrats listed was Gabrielle Giffords. It had the url of Sarah Palin’s web-site at the top, and with those cross-hairs and the slogan, “It’s time to take a stand,” it seemed like a smoking gun. 

     Along with the map, my friend declaimed that he wasn’t suggesting the shooting was political, but that it was quite a coincidence that the map existed at all.

     Balderdash, I thought, and quickly wrote a comment below his post, saying that of course it was political. How could it not be, considering who had been shot and this very map and the political climate of this country and all these damn gun-loving, ignorant conspiracy-minded dolts who don’t even realize health care reform is a good thing and that they’re almost certainly paying less money in taxes since their beloved dumb-ass Dubyah had left the office. Divisive, vitriolic numbskulls do things like this because they think it means something, I wrote, and they think they can fix things by shooting. Yes, it’s political. We’ll find out about this asshole soon enough.

     Finished with my little tirade, I moved the mouse-pointer over the “comment” button, ready to send this wake-up call to my wishy-washy friend.

     And then I paused. A thought occurred to me. What if I was wrong?

     I copied the comment, thinking I’d be back to post it, or a modified but fairly similar version of it, in short order. I closed the page and headed back to cnn.com. Who was this asshole indeed? His name had been posted, and I started doing a little standard internet research.

     Almost immediately, I found his youtube page. Through his five posted videos and profile information, it quickly became clear that Jared Loughner is a deeply disturbed, delusional human being. His videos (text-based, written by him) are not the coherent manifesto of a committed soldier of the sort who soberly plans a political assassination for the purpose of statement and possible gain. He does not appear as a zealot. He does appear, quite sadly, to be a person who is largely incapable of controlling his thoughts, desires, and anger. This is not to suggest he is not culpable for his actions, but merely to stress that with a fairly small amount of investigation, I was able to discover information that he’d presented that gave a powerful glimpse into a chaotic mind; the kind of mind that a person without a Psychology degree (such as myself) could easily see was somewhat terrifyingly arranged. I could tell that Jared Loughner likely suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was perhaps bi-polar, and was either undiagnosed at all or at least untreated. 

     More research found other corroborating evidence of such. His facebook page had been hacked and then was soon removed. His myspace page had been removed too, but screen-shots of it had popped up on the web. His last post was apparently a suicide note of a kind, and it included a reference to the “illiteracy rate”. He had mentioned grammar and mathematics in the youtube videos, and it seems evident that his limited understanding of those subjects had become part of the anger in his broken brain. One could call his writings “ramblings”, but that would not exactly tell the story they contain. The writings don’t ramble, so much as they provide a road-map of his form of logic. Such logic (which isn’t actually logical at all), along with the desire to explain it, and a dose of discontentment and paranoia, along with the pistol that he had posted a picture of on his myspace page, apparently combined to create the proverbial powder-keg. 

     Various friends of Jared’s had begun to be quoted in various internet stories by the evening. Most of them said things about his anti-social behavior, occasional outbursts, and general creepiness. One friend did mention that he was a “liberal”, which barely fazed me, as by this point I was pretty sure that Jared Loughner didn’t have a very firm grasp on reality in general, much less the nuances of contemporary politics.

     Back at facebook, the Palin map was proliferating and being passed around by more of my liberal friends. One added a comment that it was “accessory to murder,” and “no longer an opinion, now a piece of evidence from a brutal crime scene.”

     I have always seen politics as starting from an intellectual place. Liberalism, to me, is inextricably connected to a more sound and truly logical thought process. It’s visceral for me as well of course, in the sense that the precepts of liberalism include more respect for humanity, but as a child of liberal intellectuals, what makes it work for me is not how I feel about it, but how it makes sense. Are there conservative ideas that make sense as well? Sure, occasionally. But liberalism includes a willingness to understand the world in a way that is not hindered by the narrowness of conservative ideology. Free of such ignorance-inducing faith-based restrictions, a liberal-leaning mind is allowed (and requires) the freedom to analyze and understand matters of complexity without being tripped up by hatred. Make no mistake, I hate much about Sarah Palin. But what is reprehensible about her and her ilk, to me, is not so charged with anger that I can’t allow her her right to foolishness and her many past and likely future errors in judgment. This map represents a rather crass side of base human thought; us vs. them, no-holds barred. It’s simple, it’s shallow, and juxtaposed with a tragedy like that which occurred in Tucson last Saturday, it’s downright disgusting. What it is not, however, is “evidence.”

     “Most intellectuals will only half-listen,” is a line by the rapper Nas. It’s an insightful jab, and it gets to the heart of how people react in situations like this one. In many ways I can’t blame my liberal friends for their initial reactions. The event was shocking, the kind of thing that drives people toward explanation. Often, this leads to a rush to judgment or a settling on a reason or excuse. Initially, I had similar thoughts. What I found in some of these posts and the ensuing conversations on facebook, though, was a kind of commitment to an idea and poor, waffling logic that I expect from the right, and somewhat stubbornly try to believe only really shows up on that side. Unfortunately, in this instance, I was reminded that plenty who call themselves liberals, and think of themselves as open-minded intellectuals, can easily show themselves as hypocrites when faced with an emotional issue. 

     A note, then, to these people, and to myself: this is exactly the kind of thing that stokes the fires of disdain from the right-wing. Such a contradiction is at the root of what conservatives suppose is wrong with the left; that we are even more fascist by nature than they. The minute that we allow ourselves to seize on an idea like this, that Sarah Palin and the right in general are clearly responsible for such outbursts of violence, we expose ourselves as the opposite of what we should strive for, if we are to keep liberal thought running parallel with truly insightful intellectualism. As soon as we let the two diverge, we are no better than those who we’d demonize. Suggesting, on the basis of visceral feeling and thin evidence that the other side is inherently awful and at the root of all evil is what the other side does. Point out their ineptitudes. Highlight their lapses in sound thought. Point up their foolishness. Do not, however, in the process of doing so, lose sight of the only thing that can effectively keep one superior; an ability and commitment to intellectual understanding which is undaunted by vitriol and passion. A rush to judgment exposes anyone, no matter what reason and ideology that person is aligned with, as at least foolish and, as the right would suppose of the left, unwittingly dangerous in an Orwellian sense. Indignant anger that carries accusations and vitriol is the sort of thing those on the left supposed helped cause this tragedy. Yet, in many of these conversations, that’s exactly what we were giving back to those we were condemning. Ironic, at least. 

     Most of these conversations on facebook died down within a couple of days. The friend who had suggested that the map was accessory to murder downgraded his initial point to outrage that Loughner could acquire a gun, despite his run-ins with law-enforcement and obvious mental issues. This is surely true. If he could not have gotten his hands on a 9mm Glock and a 30-round(!) clip, he may well not have been able to carry out such a devastating attack. Or, maybe he would have found another way. Sometimes, crazy and angry are impossible to deter. As much as I’d prefer that Fox News and Sarah Palin and others on that side of things way over there would calm down their rhetoric, I also know that a susceptibility to judgment is a very human trait. “Do it to Julia,” cried Winston in Orwell’s 1984, giving up his lover when driven to a place of primal fear and self-preservation. Until the conservatives chain us down and set hungry rats on our eyelids, I suggest we not fall into the trap of swift blame on a thin basis. 

     The moment during which my finger hovered over the “comment” button, set to deliver my verdict on the day’s events, is the teetering moment of indecision that I’d like to believe I and my intellectually curious (and mostly liberal-minded) friends are capable of living in. The hair-trigger between the button and searching for answers is where us sane folks can find a moral victory, as we dismiss a kind of violence that is more disturbing than even that which Jared Loughner created. If we despise Palin and her muddled brand of crass thought, let’s avoid it at all costs, at every turn. She can’t win when the discourse is controlled by those who are smarter than she is and who don’t fall into the traps of foolish association based on emotional impetus. If we want to be better than her, there really is no other way. I want so desperately to know I’m nothing like that stupid, stupid woman, that I must defend her. She bears no responsibility for the events in Tucson.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
It stings.... but it's true. I still do not like her map, however! Stupid woman!
I completely disagree with you. A psychiatrist wonders how a culture of Birthers and Truthers feeds the delusions of people like Jared Loughner you really should read this, it is on Salon today.Fanning the flames of paranoia by Peter Kramer.

"What did Loughner watch or listen to? We do not know. The Web and the media contain ideas as extreme as anyone might want. According to Newsweek, Loughner posted anti-government writings and videos based on the views of the right-wing conspiracy theorist David Wynn Miller. Did more mainstream media influence Loughner? Did fear- and hate-mongering pundits or politicians play a role?

Respected colleagues and columnists have been quick to say no. Shall we give Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the others a quick pass? It is true that the biology of mental illness has its own imperative. But along with most other people, I do imagine that in a general sense social forces can mute, inflame or redirect impulses. That's what the time in the clinical office is about, in part: the use of interpersonal influence to moderate or channel emotions. Much political speech has the same aim."

She does bear responsibility. She incites a great deal of hatred and now irrational prejudice with her use of the words "blood libel". Her hands do have blood on them, everytime she refers to language that places actions within the realm of violence, she is responsible. If you were in her "cross hairs", I wonder if you would have fear...
Perhaps you didn't read the piece closely, Bonnie.

Stellaa: Exactly. Same with hip-hop music. I recommend Jay-Z's new book, "Decoded" for very interesting (important, I think) insight on the politics and rationalization behind censorship.

Sheila: Nope. Or we all have blood on our hands, for any number of things. In fact, in order to exercise our free speech, we must have blood on our hands in some way.

The point with Loughner is that a person in his condition can be set off by almost anything. Suggesting that these people you refer to are liable is to suggest that anyone could be, in any way, at any time. Just because your rational mind, or mine, or anyone who is actually sane can recognize the nuances and subtext of clumsy, dirty speech and content by Palin or whoever has no bearing whatsoever on Loughner's deranged mind. You're trying to make sense of it through your own prism, and by doing so you're saying a lot more about yourself than the subject matter.
We may never know precisely why Jared Loughner did what he did. Our agonizing pursuit of his motive lends him more undeserved gravitas than the gravitas we convey to Palin by linking her to the travesty. If we accept that someone who is emotionally disturbed can be toxically influenced by an atmosphere heated by irresponsible, inciteful rhetoric, to which Palin contributed, then we're damned fools to pretend she's not part of the problem, gravitas enhancing tho that admission might be. It seems many of us here have progressed in our reaction to this tragic event from instant emotionalism to tortured sophistry. Whatever we may think or say here the effect of Tucson on public consciousness will be and end to our tolerance for public figures who don't speak and behave like civilized adults.

As to Palin, she's political history.
Jared Loughner isn't "emotionally disturbed". He's insane. His mind doen't work in a fashion that creates associations in the way you're supposing. That's no crime in itself; in fact, people in such situations deserve and require help. But to suppose that he was driven to this by the things that you or I revile in the political climate is to misunderstand the difference between his brain and the brain of a rational or merely "emotionally disturbed" person.
She needs to take responsibility for those cross hairs on Gabby. She needs to say she is sorry. She needs to realize that what came to pass in reality was what she so carelessly put out there on that poster. You showed restraint in posting your comment in those first dark moments. But the fact remains that poster was the first thing on our minds when we heard about the tragedy.

Her words are hateful and violent. She needs to be called out on them. She and her right wing hate friends need to be told that you cannot make those kind of remarks. It is too scary. No passes.
My apologies, Joel. I had no idea you were a psychiatrist who has examined Loughner.
I think maybe you scare me more than they do, zanelle.
One does not have to be, Matt. But if this is what makes you feel secure in your weak association, I won't try to talk you out of it.
Can't see this is as an either or conversation...few are. I salute your caution of 'the trap of swift blame on thin basis'. AND culture of violence, which Ms Palin has aggressively contibuted to, is a key factor in youth violence. No matter how distrubed the individual...they are still products of our culture. Her hands are not clean.
Oh, but one does, Joel.
Oh, but one does not, Matt. Take it easy, and enjoy your simplified world.
You're the one who likes simplicity, making unqualified judgments in a highly specialized field. You should save this post and comment thread for when you've grown out of your precocious youth. If you've developed a healthy sense of humor by then you'll get some chuckles.
There are appropriate times to be angry and appalled and take people to task for their behavior. This time would be one of them. It is right to call out Palin for her behavior and call out the rest of them as well. Not that one of them will acknowledge that this behavior is unacceptable. Not one will.

Can I prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the shooter was influenced by the violent rhetoric? No, I cannot. But I am not able to blithely dismiss it either. Nor is it really the point, in the end. The point is that it is completely repulsive to put up a map and put someone in a gunsight, while repeating the words "lock and reload." Or to suggest we need "second amendment remedies." Etc. Etc. So on and so on. And when someone behaves that way and violence occurs, to blame or not, they must reap what they have sown.

What really caught me in your post was this line:

"Such a contradiction is at the root of what conservatives suppose is wrong with the left; that we are even more fascist by nature than they."

What a pile of shit. Stated inelegantly, but there it is. The liberal party does not call for someone's death. Liberal Democrats have not done so. So ... basically, your critical thinking or what you imagine is Republican critical thinking is flawed and stuck in "making it equivalent" mode, which is not accurate, not by the facts or the spirit.

I have a right to be angry. This is the time for that. I have a right to say, "That was wrong." And I'm going to continue to say it. Frankly, I feel this desire to flagellate oneself and say, "We've all been doing it" is the gravest mistake liberals could make, in large part because it absolutely isn't true. You have to go back to the effing 1960s to find that kind of leftwing reactionary movement. It doesn't exist in that way today.

No amount of "shaming" on your part is going to make it true either.

Did Sarah Palin put up a map with crosshairs, naming names of politicians? Yes, she did.

Did she and others use violent rhetoric often, ignoring a call to be civil? Yes, they did.

Did the conservative pundits often call for the assassinations of liberals? Yes, they did.

Are these things wrong? Yes, they are.

Do they deserve to be scrutinized because of their evil, crappy behavior? Yes, they do.

Will they ever admit wrong? No, they won't.

Part of MY progressive beliefs includes standing up and refusing to back down when someone has done something wrong. These things, without any proof of emotional coercion (involving the mentally unstable) attached to them, were wrong all on their own.

So, take our "we are all to blame" and stick it up your butt. I'm not to blame, and I'm going to stand against this kind of violent rhetoric. I will do it as adult because I can be angry, blame the guilty parties, and still be non-violent. I will not lay down so someone can march his or her ideology over my prone body.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Sarah Palin, along with many others, has stoked the fires of violent rhetoric, and, yes, that does have an effect on the audience, be they mentally ill or of completely sound mind.

If she were a Hollywood director, author of fiction, or a painter trying to make an artistic statement, that would be one thing, but as someone who has served in our government and who aspires to serve again, she bears responsibility to maintain civil discourse.

She has not only failed at that, and instead, she's chosen to respond to this tragedy by playing the "real" victim.

The only thing she really deserves is a press blackout, to be ostracized by all networks, newspapers, magazines, and blogs.

This isn't censorship, I'm demanding; it's called civic responsibility.
A thoughtful piece. Well done.

Rated.
What Odette said, and she said it a lot better than I could. Someone asked me earlier what we are to make of the Tucson massacre. I answered: What we make of it depends, apparently, on our personal priorities. For some it's a chance to push for gun control. For others it's about the plight of the mentally ill, or the alleged victimization of odious hatemongers like Sarah Palin. For many it's a chance to score political points or to call for liberals to be *nice* or to equate Rightist rhetoric with Leftist rhetoric. For me, given that since a week or two after Obama's inauguration I've been hearing shrieks of "I want my country back!" from a mass of deluded, hate-filled know-nothings who think that losing an election gives them the right to shout down and threaten the rest of us, the tragedy in Tucson is, among other things, a chance to say "Something really bad is going to happen if y'all don't stop screaming and saying shit like Lock and Reload and 2nd Amendment Solution and We Came Unarmed - This Time." While I realize many progressive-minded people have a fetish for self-flagellation and crying out Mea Culpa whenver the opportunity presents itself, that's not a wagon I'll be jumping on, thank you very much.
Your point of view Joel is based on your assertion that Loughner is insane. Your assumption is premature and irresponsible. Palin could well have been a direct motivator for this violent act. We just don't know yet. Your eloquent lecture seems premature as well.
Best roundup of talking points on this I've seen yet, Nana, but I'm afraid our tyro is down for his nap.
How can so many people be so wrong all in one place?

Some of Loughner's friends have been all over the radio and TV saying that he didn't watch TV, listen to talk radio, wasn't left or right or anything else. So Palin didn't have anything to do with it.

The use of the map and cross hairs came out of the Clinton White House. Dick Morris used it, and the military terms, to attack those to get Clinton reelected. That is according to him. How many of you had a problem with it back then? I'll bet none of you did.

Where were all of you when you hear others on the news refer to "blood libel"? I don't ever remember reading anything here about it until now. Do you think Palin is the first to use the phrase?

You people want to condemn violence? I suggest you read all the replies and go look in a mirror. All the hate in the replies here is making me sick.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I suggest you drop your rocks.
@Catnlion - Evidently your reading has been rather selective. If you're interested in broadening your viewpoint I'd suggest reading Nana's comment just above yours to bring you up to speed.
I, for one, haven't mentioned violence once. Nor do I hate anyone. Please don't read your own concerns into my response. Point where you see me advocating violence. Just point. I don't see anyone else calling for violence either. Yeah. So anyway ...

I am angry and think we shouldn't back down on the opposition to violent rhetoric. We have to stand up and say, yet again, THIS BEHAVIOR IS VERY WRONG. Or, we get more of it, and guess what? Because we backed down, they continue to push forward with more of the same. And then we really will be part of the problem. We might not be able to say, definitely, that the rhetoric caused people to get killed--this time. But, if we remain silent and mouth ineffectual noises about reconciliation, those remarks will eventually lead to violence. It's a no brainer.

(By the way, you know, to have people working together and to have reconciliation, the other group has to want to reconcile and compromise, right? Which ... let's be real. That is not happening. No one over there has even made a peep towards "Gee, responsible this time or not, we should back off this violent call to arms.") I wouldn't let my 3 year old get away without apologizing when she's done something wrong. Adults, ostensibly, shouldn't get away with either. Nobody is accusing them of anything that they haven't actually done! They have said these things! These things are inappropriate (and that word isn't strong enough). They should be called onto the carpet for saying them.

That's what makes me so angry about this whole thing, the suggestion that, somehow, calling them out for bad behavior is somehow our own call to violence or some other such bullshit. It's not. It's just not backing down when someone has done something wrong and needs to called on it.

So, again, no violence advocated in my post. No hatred. That's nonsense. Wake up. Reconciliation? Right now, I feel like some of the left are acting like an abused boyfriend or girlfriend who is back for me. "Oh, he's/she's not so bad! He/she can be really nice."

No. Just no.
Joel - You certainly selected a provocative title for openers. I appreciate your viewpoint and would ask the following. Gabrielle Giffords herself said she felt threatened by the crosshair website. It fell on deaf Sarah ears as does everything that doesn't feed her grandiosity. Like it or not, Sarah Palin and her "lock and load" peers are contributing to the collective mindset that violence is a solution to something.

I have no idea of Loughner's motivation; but, it appears clear that he targeted Gifford for some time and for some reason. Direct connection to Palin? No. Direct connection to the notion that killing someone is a solution? Yep. So anyone who feeds this monster (violence is acceptable) is part of the problem.
Oops. I actually wrote "who is back. At least, that's how it seems to me." And then I erased the last sentence. Sort of. Clearly, not all of it. But you get the point.
It's not gonna' help catnliar to re-read anuything. This is a guy who hasn't yet been able to grasp the difference between to, two, and too.

Blog post NOT rated.

Kudos to Odetteroulette and Nanatehay for clear-headed thinking.
Catnlion, I don't waste my time on hate. I do however get angry when anger seems appropriate.

Let's all do a little mental exercise, shall we? Imagine that your wife or husband or son or daughter, or anyone you love very much, had his/her name and location placed by a national politician on her Facebook (or wherever it was) page under an image of a rifle's crosshairs. Now imagine that, a couple months later, your loved one was shot through the brain by a deranged person, and by the way, around twenty other people were also shot, six of them fatally. Then ask yourself what your reaction would be. Would you be telling yourself "It's just a coincidence, it had nothing to do with the crosshairs, or the rhetoric about targeting my beloved, or any of that"? If you would, you're a better person than me, but in all honesty I'd have no choice but to conclude you're lying. The thing is, for the Giffords' family and for the families of all the victims down there, this is no longer a mental exercise; it is a raw, painful horrifying reality they'll have to live with the rest of their lives. Under these circumstances, anyone who wants to whine about poor, poor Sarah Palin is, to put it kindly, missing the fucking point.
Sarah Palin’s response to Saturday’s events in Arizona was atrocious. Her rhetoric may not have contributed to the events on Saturday. However, she has chosen a path in which she bears a heavy burden. This includes speaking out against the hatred and anger that many of her followers possess.
One sign at Tea Party rally stated “By ballot or by Bullet restoration is coming.” Another read “we came unarmed, this time.” Many people at these right wing rallies could be found toting a firearm. While this does not mean she supported violence, Ms. Palin seemed to relish the image. On one occasion, Ms. Palin received an engraved Henry Big Boy .44 magnum from the Arkansas Republican party after being a keynote speaker. Another photo shows her firing a gun with Lieutenant Col David Cogdell.
Further, this behavior has made our elected officials feel threatened. Four Arizona Republicans have resigned citing fear due to threats from the Tea Party.
Although Ms. Palin’s acts may merely be rhetoric and show, she has a duty to tell the more aggressive followers mentioned above to tone it down. Instead her message, filled with anger, proclaimed that she was a victim of the liberal pundits. Ms. Palin was probably right that she was not responsible for what happened Saturday. Maybe it would have been more appropriate if she just announced that she was not responsible.
Go, Nan.
Abso-fuckin'-lutely.
Soooo, the DNC map with the bulls-eyes on the states for the 2004 Presidential Elections gets a pass but Palin's doesn't? Sorry, but I find it difficult to use intellectual and liberal in the same sentence. However, I do applaud you for showing some restraint by not spreading the lies. Maybe there is hope for us yet.
Yes and she is just complete nincompoopers. Obama care for the first time in 30 years treats mental Illness like any other Illness - This is how you catch the loughners of the world and get them ( and their parents) the help they need BEFORE they blow up - a fact seemingly lost on the media and especially nincompoops on the right that ae going to start gleefully trying to kill it again next Tuesday. I suspected that she would shoot her own mouth off one of these days judging by the way she handles a gun (lil rusty are ya mama drizzly).
Pots, meet the Kettles.

http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs454.ash1/24972_382925783587_24718773587_3655178_2736968_n.jpg

Joel, perhaps you are right to be afraid. Political zealotry, especially in its self-righteous form, should always be cause for concern.
@DJohn - With a little practice I'm sure you can overcome this difficulty.
Phony Comparison between Palin’s Lethal Crosshairs Map and Democrats’ Map

Earl Ofari Hutchinson



The loops that Tea Party leaders, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and more staid conservative analysts, and even Barbara Walters has been amazing to watch to let Sarah Palin off the hook for her lethal crosshairs map that targeted House Democrat Gabriella Giffords and nineteen other Democrats is absolutely amazing to see and hear. Their argument mostly boils down to two points of defense. Palin’s map and her bulls eye target of Giffords and the other Democrats was politically savvy and focused effort to target vulnerable Democrats, and galvanize GOP voters in those districts. There was absolutely no personal or hint of violent animus in her political ploy. The second point is that her map is just a standard eye catching political graphic that Democrats have also used to target vulnerable Republicans and rally Democrats to defeat them.

Neither is remotely true. Let’s look at Palin’s map and compare it to the widely published and cited Democratic Leadership Council map by Palin apologists. The DLC published their political map not as a prelude to the midterm elections as Palin’s map was, but a month after the 2004 presidential election. George W. Bush had already won a second term. The graphic was part of a lengthy, and fleshed out assessment of the reasons why the Democrats lost the 2004 election and what the party had to do to be competitive in 2008. The DLC political manifesto ticked off a list of issues, course corrections and outlined a strategy that the party had to undertake to win toss up states in and outside of the South and the Midwest to have any chance of victory in 2008. The DLC map did not mention one single GOP congressperson or senator by name for defeat. It focused exclusively on the states that the Democrats needed to ramp up their time, energy and resources in trying to make a political dent in the GOP’s decade long dominance in those states. It crunched the political numbers and showed that Bush won the potential swing states by single digit margins and stressed the strengths and weaknesses in those states of the Democrat’s strategy, approach and organization. The nine bulls eyes on the DLC map carefully explained that the Bush margin of victory in the swing states was less than 10 percent. Palin’s map was no political assessment of the strengths and weakness of the Democratic Party, did not lay out a blueprint or grand strategy for increasing the GOP influence in the states, let alone make any effort to educate voters on the crucial issues.

It was nothing more than a crude, calculated, and cynical, inflammatory political hit piece on individual Democrats with the inflammatory appeal in bold “Let’s take a stand” and hammering on the issue that was the most caustic and inflammatory for many conservatives and that was the health care reform bill. Palin’s hit list of Democrats was designed not to educate and inform voters on the range of issues in the elections, but to politically wipe out Democrats that Palin thought were easy pickings. Gabriella Giffords was, tragically, one of them. She instantly recognized the danger of Palin’s crass map. She pulled no punches in interviews warning that “words have consequences” and that she did feel that Palin’s map targeting her posed a threat that went far beyond mere political bad theater; that there was the real possibility that some unbalanced individual could in fact take her admonition to take a stand literally, and do serious harm to one or more of the targets on Palin’s hit list.

Giffords sadly was right. It wasn’t hard for her to make that warning. For months, millions have been relentlessly bombarded with images of a gun toting Palin on hunting forays, and exulting the virtues of guns. The spectacle of Palin’s Tea Party devotees packing guns and weapons, and issuing bellicose saber rattle threats to liberal and moderate Democrats with President Obama right at the top of their list as a target of their shrill violence tinged abuse have been looped repeatedly. Palin and her defenders spin it every which way that her political map was a perfectly acceptable political blueprint for defeating Democrats, and that if some nut case decides to blast away at a public figure don’t smear the blood of that figure and the innocents that go down in the crossfire on them. That blood is on their hands, or more accurately on their hyper-charged incendiary rhetoric against Democrats. Polls and surveys show that a majority of Americans did see the real consequences of the vitriol and pure hate and potential incitement to violence behind maps and rhetoric like Palin and company as Giffords. They are fed up with it. The great tragedy is that Gifford’s prophetic words about the hate behind Palin’s map weren’t heeded. The nation paid a steep price for ignoring that. Any effort to chalk that up to politics that everyone engages in defames the Tucson dead.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts national Capitol Hill broadcast radio talk show on KTYM Radio Los Angeles and WFAX Radio Washington D.C. streamed on ktym.com and wfax.com and internet TV broadcast on thehutchinsonreportnews.com
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Phony Comparison between Palin’s Lethal Crosshairs Map and Democrats’ Map - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/phony-comparison-between-palin-s-lethal-crosshairs-map-and-democrats-map#ixzz1AyTmORlo
Cross hairs and "BEHIND ~ENEMY~ LINES" -- phony comparison, indeed.

It's amazing the lengths to which zealots will go to avoid owning up to their own hypocrisies.
In addition to the ridiculous and inflammatory language on the "right", they've been egging on these douchebags who have been carrying guns to political rallies and essentially menacing people who disagree with them. Among western democracies, only in the U.S. would these assholes be considered within their rights.
Of course it's not the rational people who commit political murders. It usually gets done by crazy people who believe the hateful bullshit that they're told. What Palin and the rest of these hateful opportunists are doing might not be "actionable" or a straightinle cause of tragedy, but it isn't to be tolerated or respected.
Sarah Palin meets George Washington

You tube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QE6Hha2a90
Sarah Palin meets George Washington

You tube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QE6Hha2a90
I just now ran across an article discussing the comments which are being deleted from Sarah's Facebook page. Here's one that had so far escaped the notice of Ms. Palin's revisionist staff; it's by a woman named Tina King and refers to the 9 year old girl who was killed by Jared Loughner last Saturday:

"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/
sarah-palin-facebook-page-deleting-negative-comments-about-giffo/


Can't you just feel the love?
Nan's last comment helps in illustrating a point I hope to make about the left and the right in this country. The creator of the deleted comments on Palin's FB page may have been trying to be nuanced, ironic, satiric or just plain in your face humorous...or they meant every word of it. Yet, the right is ill-equipped with the humor chromosone compared to the left and most of their jokes/quips/posts comes across as mean, brash, belittling and bellicose and can be misread by many an acolyte as a call to arms and action.
I don't see that as a problem with the left.
Agreed. If it was meant as a joke it's among the worst attempts at humor I've ever seen, and it gives you a window into the thinking of many on the right these days. A Palin fan's mind is a terrible thing to taste.
If they had a bit of humor that actually made you laugh, it would help their cause.
It is amazing how much all you liberals can be in total denial. No matter how many facts are presented to you, you just have to have it be the way you want. And what you want is sick. You want so badly for there to actually be a connection between this nut and Palin or any tea party association. You WANT it to be true that it is her fault. How sick is that. You want it because you hate Palin.
Think of what it means if you are right. What you hope it means is a change in sentiment for your can political gain. But it would mean much more that that. It would mean one person could actually influence another to kill for political disagreement or any other reason. It would mean you might be guilty too. You all know damn well she in no way wanted anyone killed. But you want it to be so so badly. You really need to look in the mirror and ask why?

Did media cause JLB to kill Lincoln. No, he did it himself. Is it not possible he was angry bigot and decided to kill all by himself. If Palin was the demon you make her to be she would have been the one to do the deed.

Is everyone a puppet for someone else? No one ever does something because of their own volition? Of course they do.

Did the guy who shot at Reagan have to automatically be a liberal.
I don't recall anyone making any assumptions about who or what thinking killed Kennedy until after Oswald was arrested. But you all jumped to conclusions.
How about this theory. How would you like it if the conservative media you hate claimed the she was a conservative democrat and he was motivated by some of the liberals that are calling Obama and his admin not liberal enough. There has been a lot of angry rhetoric
in the world too. It is just a plausible.

Now what you you think of me if I was just itching for my theory to be true just so I could brand all liberals as violent and nuts.
That is what you want. You want Palin to be guilty so you can make all conservatives guilty.

I probably don not disagree with most of you about most social issues. I am not a moral conservative. I am not for abortion but I would not change the law. I have no problem with gay rights.

I am a fiscal conservative that is pissed off about $14 trillion debt.
And i don't care who spent it. I am pissed a them all.
I am pissed that I have paid ~ 150K in social security and it is all spent. So I agree with the tea party in a lot of ways. You want to label this nut job a tea party'er so you can therefore equate me to him. And that is offensive. And it is a political ploy.
The point is, for the numbnuts ninnies, not that Palin caused this, but that Palin, the Tea Peeps, etc, spent two years more than merely implying that violence and armed insurrection are valid options to losing elections. Ironically, and hypocritically, they parade it as patriotism.
The gunsight map, if it were the only, or even a rare example, would escape retrospective criticism. It would be as insignificant as the DJohn and Cat (who are a perfect parrots for Rwing media themes) example of some past target map that was not an example of a broad theme of violence.

So, "keep your powder dry" Djohn, who doesn't know Constitution from constipation, and who, like Cat, needs to be told what to think...and Cole, who seems a standard oblivious Rwinger, I'll make this as simple as can be.

Tucson was a perfect illustration of what the Tea Party frauds against true American values said was a viable option to free elections. That it took a mentally imbalanced person to perform this act you so admire should tell you something (something the rest of us already know), but I'm sure the simple and factual reflection of the bloody act to your rhetoric will remain a mystery, as you also suffer an imbalance of logic to input.

We can now ask if you were lying when you implied a "2nd amendment solution" was acceptable, or are you just chickenshits now? You're defending Palin, but I'm not seeing you defend the 2nd Amendment Solution...is DJohns powder now wet?

There it is. Dead people. Political dead people. Blood and violence.
Don't back down now. Don't run from your own beliefs. Embrace it. Own it.
Then shut the F up, as your opinion isn't worthy of an adult anyway.
Haven't you all noticed? With the rehearsed statement, the somber demeanor, the flag in the background, the teleprompter shimmering in her glasses, there is finally no longer any doubt: Sarah Palin is the shadow president of the United States, the Anti-Obama. Stay tuned for further "statements" from our Dear Leader-in-waiting.
I've thought and said from the beginning that the shooter was mentally ill, but I don't think you can let Sarah off that easily. Hateful rhetoric gives the crazies permission to act out their deranged fantasies.
"Jared Loughner isn't "emotionally disturbed". He's insane."

Sorry, but that's not for you to determine, unless you happen to end up on the jury. Insanity is a very specific legal term, not a psychological/psychiatric one, and it is determined by the trier of fact. I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist (although I have an MA in psychology), but I would lay odds that Loughner is mentally ill. Mental illness, however, doesn't necessarily translate into legally insane, especially by the federal definition. In fact, I'd lay odds 100 to 1 against him being found legally insane, but it's not my decision either.

BTW, do you think Bush deserved any blame for the increase in the insurgency when he said, "Bring it on"?
Paul - you are one sick fuck. Just where did you read that we
admire this guy?

I call myself a fiscal conservative and don't associate with
right wing moral conservatism. And you call me
a right winger.
You are such an ass. Personally I have no joy about this event
nor have I heard of this congresswoman before.
I think you are the one that is happy about this because you want to insist it was politically motivated. You WANT to believe "I" and every conservative would do this and you WANT an excuse to generalize.
As I said he could be a disgruntled uber liberal.
But the evidence so far is that is is not at all as simplistic as a right wing nut kills a conservative democrat.
You want it to be that way and it s not and it PISSES you off.
Sorry the conservatives did not kill anyone to serve your cause.

Was the guy that shot Regan a liberal? I have no idea because it never crossed my mind to think about it. Maybe he was a democrat.
If so they I generalize and call you a hate mongering killer.

Jackass.
Palin is a "has-been" or perhaps even a "never was." Why are people still talking about her? She would crawl back into the woodwork without all media attention--the only thing she craves.
Would it be proper (in the next election) for opponents of seated TEA legislators to put a bulls eye on the their face and use the motto "we aim to defeat you"? Would they scream then about making them a target for nut jobs? Yes this man was deranged and may or may not have used the cross hairs to encourage his actions. But what about the next guy that thinks he will be a hero for fulfilling what he perceives to be his call to action.
A very good post. Food for thought. I don't believe any right thinking liberal would place blame on Palin for what happened. Rather, she is a symbol of the hatred and emotionalism of the reactionary forces at work in this country, and thus draw lots of fire from those of us who believe that the "climate provides for the weather."

Let me ask one question: Had Loughner lived in a total political vacuum, would he have done what he did? Would he have singled out a congresswoman for assassination?

Of course not. Point made, I hope.
That is a lot of speculation for something that has not happened.

As for Palin, I am only defending that she is not responsible. If you think I care about her career you are mistaken. And yes I would love to know why she wont go away. She is long gone in my mind. But you guys just love to hate her.
I find it hilarious that you guys don't just ignore her.
Dont worry. She will never be your next pres. or vp. But she will have influence. My guess is she will go away when as the GOP candidates become obvious and she is not one of them. Then the MSNBC will have someone else to hate.

For me. I cant stand her high pitched voice.
I've been reading the comments you guys have written, you seem like a bunch of smart people. If my life has taught me one thing it's that crazy is crazy. People with mentally ill familyknow this all of these words don't change anything about this young man if in fact he is ill. Crazy does not make sense nor can it. Who's to blame?
vann
Sorry, but your "defense" fails. For starters, this is not an isolated incident, it's one of a pattern of escalating harassment, threats and violence against elected officials, judges, and the President -- who, I must point out, has received more death-threats than any previous President.

HAve you heard the flat-out batshit insanity that's been coming from the Republicans since 1992? That map with the cross-hairs is only the tip of the dungberg. Republicans have been pandering to the most irrational and even infantile undercurents in the American psyche: xenophobia, religious bigotry, fear of unspecified (but vaguely nonwhite) marauders raping our children and building "victory mosques" on our hallowed ground -- not to mention some of the wildest conspiracy theories ever stoked by a major national party, especially regarding Hilary Clinton, Vince Foster, and Obama's religion and birth certificate.

Do you really think a national party and its allies in the mass-media can incite so much pervasive irrationality, for so many years, and not expect an irrational response from people who are susceptible to irrational suggestions?

Republican rhetoric has portrayed liberals as evil alien baby-killers, and elected Democrats as illegitimate. Not just wrong, but illegitimate and ineligible to the posts to which they were duly elected. Republicans have explicitly called for "retribution" against judges who don't rule their way. The teatards have been raving about "socialist takeovers," "Second Amendment remedies," and "death panels" that want to kill our grandmothers. All of these allegations are not just cause to vote against Democrats, but cause for violent rebellion against our entire democratic system. And now you want us to believe there's no connection between psychotic rhetoric and psychotic actions?

IF there's no connection between rhetoric and actions, then why did Giffords see the connection before it happened to her? If she saw the connection beforehand, then NO ONE has any excuse not to see the connection afterwords. How many more incidents so there have to be before we see a pattern? I've been seeing it since 1992; what's taking you so long?

Democrats shot at...a Federal judge dead...I gotta ask why Republiscan words are so creepily in line with "isolated" psychotic deeds.
While America may not be able to "censor" Sarah Palin, they will be able to castigate her, and ultimately demote her into obscurity...which is where she belongs. The woman in my opinion is not fit for ANY public office. It's a shame Alaska elected her in the first place...shame further that McCain pulled his "woman stunt" and elevated her to where she is today.
"Who will decide what will be censored?"

I will.

Happy darling?
One more thing, guns aside if we had a good mental health system would this young man have done what he is said to have done. At the very least he would have been indentified as ill, he would be much less likely to have been able to buy a gun.
(my second comment)
vann
Joseph Cole: "Paul - you are one sick fuck."

A little Freudian projection, here, joseph? Paul reads and studies BEFORE he posts. Who's the sick one? Clearly it is you.

More Freudian projection: "Did media cause JLB to kill Lincoln."

John Wilkes Booth - where'd you get the "L?" Thinking it stands for Liberal. John Liberal Booth - ROTFLMAO.

PS - We usually put a question mark after questions.
PPS - Try reading - comic books and the Sunday cartoons, don't count.
What is it with liberals, always wanting to find acceptable "solutions" to everything? Always taking the higher road. I see it here all the time, including the above article. So much easier to find simple platitudes and be done with it.
That's what people on the right want: SIMPLE.
Life is complex though so I guess they're shit out of luck. And so they rant and resort to as shit simple as they can get, which usually involves a non frontal lobe solution.
Sorry, I'm angry too. And I am in complete agreement with Odette, Sheila and Paul and anyone else who agrees that the right wing hate machine bears responsibility.
birdog
Jesus, cannot we all agree that she is a moron, a hate monger, keyed and focused on faciliating debate that divides clear thinking?

I say fuck her, and fuck her apologists.

She is deeply stupid, and any discussion about her views, her remarks, her positions on anything feed into her promoting her speel of ugliness and fear?

My only hope for her is that she is nominated as the Republican candidate in 2012.

Who is with me on that?