As mentioned in the post just below, the person in custody in the Tucson shootings is a young white male named Jared Lee Loughner. Although the Left has already begun spitting venom at conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular (they are going to regret it, I think; I am reminded of when our Dear Leader Mike Bloomberg suggested that the Times Square bomber, who later turned out to be the Muslim zealot Faizal Shazad, was probably “someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something”), it seems from a look at Mr. Loughner’s YouTube page that the man is simply insane, and by my guess a paranoid schizophrenic.
In his video clips, which are a series of text slides, Mr. Loughner seems obsessed with syllogisms, mind control, currency, literacy, grammar, and Government Officials. (If you are thinking of having a look, do so soon; there’s no guarantee the page will be up for much longer.) He is very clearly barking mad — way out there where the buses don’t run — but in that horrifying, almost-rational way that in my experience seems to be so common with schizophrenics.
Here’s an example, in two slides:
49 Comments
Of course conservatives will deny any culpbility with this horrendous crime!
They will call the man a lone, solitary, lunatic…
They will blame liberal society…
They willl point the finger at anything and everything except modern American conservatism, which preaches that liberals and democrats are the bona fide enemies of the United States and a threat to the naion’s very existence.
No reason to suspect conservatism as the man’s motivation, then, is there?
Conservatism must evolve.
It must change.
Thse who believe otherwise are merely passing around the nails for the next liberal democrat’s coffin, murdered at the hands of yet another hero for the conservative movement.
Nice!
Exempli gratia…
Thanks for commenting, Del.
This individual is no example of conservative or liberal. A delusional young man certainly. But for any “political ideology” to be proclaimed for such an act – glosses over, ignores what is apparent on his webpostings.
As noted in the previous post, (paraphrasing) “spinning is already and obviously rampant…” If any particular political ideology was causal – events such as this example would be commonplace. Such is not the case.
There is much more in this case than what meets the untrained eye. Just from the available YouTubes and such, the agencies involved in the investigation have already arrived at this.
I would expect since the “obvious victim” happened to be a Democrat – those with agenda will be first out of the gate. For those people – it’s easier to overlook the one individual who was killed outright on-scene – a Judge appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush.
“In his video clips, which are a series of text slides, Mr. Loughner seems obsessed with syllogisms, mind control, currency, literacy, grammar, and Government Officials. […] He is very clearly barking mad.”
Crap. I share many of this man’s interests.
The flash video file will be in your browser’s cache. In Opera it is a .tmp file. Change it to .flv and it will play and can be embedded as a flash video elsewhere.
As do I, Kevin. The difference is the part about being barking mad.
What I didn’t mention above is this bizarre and disturbing video, unlike the others, which depicts an masked and hooded figure, apparently an amputee, burning a U.S. flag. The soundtrack is the song “Bodies”, by the “nu-metal” band Drowning Pool.
Lemme check, seems like my comments aren’t getting posted.
It appears (that for whatever reason) I’m getting blocked.
In regards to currency his thoughts are 100% consensus albeit poetically interpreted.
This is obviously just a grotesquely, hopelessly insane person; this murder spree has nothing more to do with liberal/conservative politics (obviously Tea Party conservatives don’t burn American flags) than it does with grammar, or syllogisms.
It makes one’s flesh crawl to encounter such bleak, utter madness; I’ve encountered it personally before, and it fills me with horror.
Somewhat tangential, but if a Muslim committed such an act…
Of course liberals will deny any Islamic culpbility with this horrendous crime!
They will call the man a lone, solitary, lunatic…
They will blame prejudiced society…
They willl point the finger at anything and everything except modern Islam, which preaches that unbelievers and Jews are the bona fide enemies of Islam and a threat to the naion’s very existence.
No reason to suspect Islam as the man’s motivation, then, is there?
Islam must evolve.
It must change.
Thse who believe otherwise are merely passing around the nails for the next unbeliever’s coffin, murdered at the hands of yet martyr for Islam.
Now you go too far Malcolm. It is one thing to say that the young man was insane-that seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it?-it is another to say that the political milieu has nothing to do with it. But Jared’s interests were starkly political: he talks about district-8 and illiteracy (Gifford’s district), government mind control, currency without a gold standard, the Constitution, revolution, the illegitimacy of the flag. His favorite books, at least as he quoted them, include Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, and To Kill a Mockingbird. Jared’s politics were not conventionally conservative or liberal, but his views can not be understood, as much as they can be understood, outside of the rabid political climate of contemporary Arizona and US politics.
“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.”
He later added:
DUPNIK: 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.
REPORTER: How do you know that that’s what caused it.
DUPNIK: You don’t.
p.s. I would be wary of claiming that liberals are going to do X (by god why do you have to treat liberals as some stupid monolithic amoeba?) without actually giving evidence that that is really predominant. Supposition is for fools and ideologues.
Er, Harold?
Unsure I understand – are you saying the Tea Party is a front-group for the Muslim-Brotherhood?
The Koch Brothers aren’t going to be at all happy with your insinuations.
Here is a foolish supposition. If Jared had been Mexican (or an illegal) how the wolves would howl.
Yes, I imagine that if Mr. Loughner were an illegal Mexican immigrant, or a jihadi, I suppose there would indeed have been howling, and with good reason. But as it actually happens, Mr. Loughner is neither a Muslim, nor a Mexican, nor an illegal, nor, apparently, even a conservative of any familiar sort, though there has certainly been a brisk trade in high-temperature hypotheticals and convoluted counterfactuals along all of those fanciful lines; we do, however, hear once again a familiar chorus of angry voices complaining of a wave of right-wing violence that is always imminent, but never seems to materialize.
What Mr. Loughlin is, it now seems abundantly clear, is a madman — and not just tautologically so, given his having committed such a monstrous act, but genuinely, certifiably, conspicuously, and (as we now know) dangerously, insane.
It will be interesting to learn how he legally purchased his weapon.
Harold is engaging in supposition. Such non-evidence based discourse facilitates in-group identity and cohesion by co-constructing narratives that accord with the default in-group consensus-view of the world with the advantage of not having any direct confirming or dis-confirming evidence to attend to (since there can be none). This is fine, as it goes. It is a behavior that all communities engage in. Nonetheless, it can be highly corrosive to a higher-order need for an evidence-based and reasonable political discourse. My liberal friends get the same lecture.
See above.
Malcolm, once again: if you are going to make a claim that the left is rife with shrill voices and pointed fingers (as if this were in fact the preponderant reaction among the left) then PROVIDE EVIDENCE!
Apparently howsurprising, he was a birthright citizen according to his “Tweet” friend, Caitie Parker – he may’ve thought he was Spiderman too.
“caitieparker Caitie Parker @ @antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653538/posts
What the deal is howsurprising, MSNBC is now blocking their bylines: here’s the Google Search page.
Oh, need I really provide a battery of links? How tiresome (and howunsurpisinglyso); you could easily find them yourself, in all the obvious places. It’s late, and I’m not so well.
Ah well, I’ll spend a minute or so to indulge you. Here’s Paul Krugman. Here’s the Daily Kos. And here’s some more.
If you want more, go find it yourself. It won’t be difficult.
Here is the most prominently displayed editorial at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/wtc-oklahoma-city-and-now_n_806285.html
“Now comes Tucson. The deaths there are not about politics, ideology or party. From what we know, Jared Loughman’s acts were those of a madman divorced from reality, let alone from public debate….Arizona has become a ferociously divided and dangerous place, in which our indispensable need to argue–arguing is, after all, who we are as a people–seems at times to veer into an abyss.”
Here is the second most prominently displayed editorial (2cd in order)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/a-destructive-crossroads_b_806276.html
“Whatever is to be said about the state of the gunman today, whether he had psychological issues or not, he was angry. Across America today, people are angry. They may choose to channel that anger in a number of either self-destructive or destructive ways. But whatever any of our feelings are, our challenge and our obligation is to channel that energy into a path based on resolution. For a path based on destruction is just that, destruction.”
The third most prominent may suit your assumptions better, but I wonder with just what part you pointedly disagree:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/words-have-consequences_b_806250.html
There will be others of course. One way or the other.
Howsurprising, please simmer down, and try to use your powers of reason. Did I suggest anywhere that there were nowhere to be found on the Left any rational voices?
Of course not, nor would I. For example, President Obama made a good, calm speech; just what was needed.
It is as if I had said “there are wolves in the forest”, and you went off into the forest and produced an animal that was not a wolf, just to prove me wrong.
Go to bed. Tomorrow’s another day.
Apologies to all.
According to Savage, liberalism is a mental disorder. You began the blog post with a general attribution of a whiny property to the “Left”. The deal isn’t about “oh here are some whiny lefties” or “here are some rational lefties” (and we could substitute righties for lefties), but about a proper characterization of a diverse class of people that attends to facts rather than the kinds of suppositions about the political opposition that reinforces that opposition in the first place. I think that kind of dialogue is counter-productive, and I call you on it.
I am however, sorry to hear about your poor health. Get some rest.
I began the post saying that many on the Left had already begun objurgating the political Right for this madman’s act, as indeed they had.
That there are irrational extremists on both the Right and the Left is hardly breaking news. A pox on all their houses.
Thanks you for your kind words about my health, which is slowly improving.
According to the Liberal street, it is impossible to ascribe any characteristic to it, because they can always produce at least one counter example. Hence, all one can say about the Liberal street is: it can not be defined, but we all know it when we see, hear or smell it.
Now, off to bed, Malcolm. Yes, I am a doctor.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
Bill O’Reilly demonized Dr. George Tiller, called him a baby killer and a Nazi, until some nut case killed him. Sarah Palin put Giffords on her website in cross hairs. Sharron Angle suggested a “Second Amendment solution” to Harry Reid. Newt Gingrich equated the people behind the Muslim center in lower Manhattan with Nazis. And so forth and so on. If this is not inciteful speech, I don’t know what is. Inevitably somebody with loose screws will do something. And after something is done — as in Tucson or with Dr. Tiller — they will coquettishly withdraw and say that their words were not the cause. Bullshit.
Nor is there an equivalence between Right and Left. Of course there are nut jobs on both sides. However, if there is any prominent or responsible person on the Left who advocated a Second Amendment solution for Dick Cheney, I missed it.
The Right indisputably bears culpability for this event. If there is any prominent person on the Right who called out O’Reilly, Angle, or Gingrich, I missed it too. Words have consequences. O’Reilly, Angle, Gingrich, and the rest of them: they all have blood on their hands. Shame on them all.
“However, if there is any prominent or responsible person on the Left …, I missed it.”
There aren’t any, with the possible exception of Teeth D’Olbermann.
I watch Olbermann about a third of the time, and I will concede that he does tend towards foaming of the mouth.
However, I have never seen him call for someone’s assassination explicitly (as with Angle) or with a nod and a wink (as with Palin).
Oh, pish-posh, Pete. At the Daily Kos, probably the most influential left-wing website, Markos Moulitsas actually put Gabrielle Giffords on a target list with a bullseye too (since taken down). President Obama himself told left-wing activists “if they [the Right] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”, and rallied his supporters along racial lines to “punish our enemies”.
Sure, “second-amendment solution” was way over the top. The point of that remark was that the Second Amendment existed as a bulwark against tyranny, the last line of defense for the people against an out-of-control government. Poorly chosen words? Inflammatory? Sure. But it wasn’t a call for assassination — what she meant was that a great many people felt that their country really was being usurped, and in order that the nation not revert to the sort of situation for which the Second Amendment was put in place, the first thing that had to happen was for her to “take out Harry Reid” — in the election. But it was spectacularly poorly worded, and might as well have been gift-wrapped for her opponents. Anyway, Sharron Angle lost her election, certainly in part due to that remark, and is now nothing more than a private citizen. You don’t think there are poorly chosen, inflammatory words on the Left?
Metaphors for politics as combat are nothing new, on either side, and any glance at history, even American history of the late 20th century, gives you plenty of examples of Leftist calls to violent revolution, and actual violence too – the Panthers, the Weathermen, SDS, politically rehabilitated figures like Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, etc. (Not to mention all the obvious socialist/communist biggies throughout that bloody century in Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, Korea, etc., etc.)
Anyway, making this guy out to be any sort of conservative is ridiculous; among his favorite books were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, and his favorite video on YouTube was about a flag-burning — hardly the sort of thing a conservative American would endorse.
Who’s to blame for this shooting? A paranoid schizophrenic named Jared Lee Loughner. Leave it there, please.
Oh – and what all that “Up against the wall, motherfucker!” stuff everyone used to happily sing along with when we were kids back in the Sixties? “Look what’s happening on the street! Got a Revolution!” “Off the pigs!” “Power to the People!”
Didn’t seem to bother you then, as I recall…
Your recollection is incorrect. I marched against the war in Viet Nam, but I never supported violent revolution. Nor did the mainstream Left, which castigated Angela Davis, Eldridge Cleaver, and the rest of the 1960’s relics you mention.
There is a radical Left and a mainstream Left. You are conflating the two. The mainstream Left — which I would define as the New York Times, MSNBC, Pat Leahy, Barbara Boxer, and so forth — may have views which you regard as abhorrent, but they do not incite violence. If you went to Joe Biden’s website, I don’t think you would see anybody in crosshairs.
My point is that the Right is so far off the deep end that it is inseparable from the radical Right. The leading lights of the Right wing are people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Bill O’Reilly. They make inciteful comments on a day-to-day basis, yet are never called out by anyone else on the Right. When was the last time you saw a Republican criticize Rush Limbaugh?
Sarah Palin could have been President. Bill O’Reilly has the most popular talk show on cable TV. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. These are not fringe figures. They represent mainstream conservatism.
Are there thoughtful conservatives? Of course. Krauthammer is a smart guy with interesting things to say, although he can reliably be counted on to be wrong about pretty much everything. Ditto for the Wall Street Journal.
As for tyrannical government: overheated rhetoric with no basis in fact. We do not have a tyrannical government. Period. It’s as silly as the meme about “taking our country back.” Obama won by millions of votes. His popularity is around 50%. Taking the country back from whom?
Whether the shooter was a conservative or not is irrelevant. As a lunatic, I doubt he had a coherent ideology. My point is simply that the heavy hitters in the conservative movement routinely make inciteful and outrageous remarks. If others in the movement pointed that out, that would be one thing. But they don’t.
Well, Peter, you seem to have responded only to my last, throwaway comment, which quoted the Jefferson Airplane — rather a mainstream band on the Left in our day. It’s gratifying that you didn’t align yourself with the Panthers, or the Weathermen (neither did I), but overheated, revolutionary Leftist rhetoric was all around.
(And Bill Ayers and Angela Davis, by the way, are both friends of the current President; in fact, Weathermen co-founder Ayers is one of his closest confidants.)
No prominent voice on the right is doing anything other than expressing ardent dissent. If we are now going to start interpreting political symbolism as calls to violence, well, as I pointed out in my longer comment above: Markos Molitsas, an enormously influential left-wing voice, had his own gunsights on Gabrielle Giffords too; President Obama talked about “bringing a gun to the fight”, and so on. These are metaphors, Peter. People in politics have always “targeted” their opponents, had them “in the crosshairs”, etc. Politics, as they say, ain’t beanbag; it is conflict and struggle: struggle for power between interested groups, and struggle between competing views (and the principal competing views of what America should be are very far apart right now). It’s telling that both war and politics proceed by “campaigns”, that candidates face “uphill battles” and “come under fire”, that damaging news is a “bombshell”, and so on. What you call “inciteful and outrageous remarks” are nothing more than calls to determined opposition.
As for “taking the country back”: a good example of the sort of thing so many people are upset about is the way Obamacare was passed: an enormous bill of truly historic magnitude, steamrolled through by a temporary majority, with absolutely no bipartisan support (unlike previous huge-scale entitlement-program legislation such as Medicare, which had backers on both sides of the aisle), against a clear majority of popular sentiment. In America, when vast numbers of ordinary citizens begin to feel that the government is making gigantic, transformational, history-altering decisions without their consent, they start to get pissed off, and they say so. Last I checked, it was still their right to do so.
I realize that from where the “mainstream Left” stands the Right looks like it’s “off the deep end” — but the “mainstream Left” is in fact quite a bit farther to the left than it thinks it is, and the reason the message from the Right has resonated so strongly is very simply that it is articulating what a very great many people in America, a center-right nation, are thinking and feeling these days — as shown in the last election.
“Taking the country back” is what got well underway in those elections, and with any luck will continue in 2012.
Another point about dissent: it’s very easy for the group in power to play the cool-and-collected role, characterizing the opposition as overheated and uncivil. But I well recall the tone of the Left during the Bush administration, when the President was routinely compared to Hitler, to a chimpanzee, etc.
John Boehner — whom John Derbyshire, in last week’s particularly pungent podcast, aptly called a “lachrymose, dimwitted hack”, but who now is the most powerful figure on the American Right — made a very humble and civil speech upon taking up the Speaker’s gavel the other day.
This is just how it goes. It would be nice if everybody just thought the world of each other, but there it is.
Pete, I’m sure you are gathering up ammunition for your next salvo here, and I’m about to call it a night, so I will give you this: is it careless, and unnecessary, and even stupid and counterproductive for either side’s cause, to lean so hard on these violent metaphors in political discourse? Yes. And if Sarah Palin and Markos Moulitsas didn’t both now see that, they wouldn’t have taken those pages down.
But: the killer here was the insane Jared Loughner, not Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Bill O’Reilly (all of whom I consider vain, obnoxious loudmouths, and an embarrassment and liability to intelligent conservatism) or anyone else.
I’m back to work tomorrow, and will be very busy, so probably won’t be able to respond anytime soon to whatever you are about to post. But we’ve both had our say anyway; I’m sure there is enough here for readers to grasp our positions. Anyway, I can pass the baton to Victor Hanson, who has just posted an essay about this “blood on their hands” business, in which he reminds us, for example, of a good example I had forgotten about: the awarding of the first prize at the Toronto Film Festival to a “docudrama” (or far-left snuff-porn, depending on your point of view) about assassinating George Bush.
Malcolm,
I am not completely unbiased here because I am most definitely in agreement with the views you have expressed. But, for what it is worth, I think that what you have said, and especially how you have said it, without a trace of rancor or disingenuousness, is very convincing.
Sorry Peter, though you do have a way with words, you come across as a provocateur rather than one who is sincere about his point of view. I have the distinct impression that you are more interested in winning the debate than in making sense. And in my humble opinion, you are not winning the debate either.
Malcolm, per your comment of January 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm – someone caught Kos with his hand in the cookie jar:
http://sheya.com/2011/01/08/politicizing-an-horrific-tragedy/
Lots of examples of “war lingo.”
Well, thanks very much for that, Henry, I do appreciate it – although, knowing Peter as well as I do, I think that you do him a great disservice when you question his sincerity. I disagree strongly with him on many of these issues, but I think he generally argues his side very well, and while of course he likes to win an argument — who doesn’t? — I have no doubt whatsoever that he means what he says.
When differences are not in the explication of one’s argument, but arise instead from irreconcilable sets of postulates, there is usually little hope of resolution, and that’s what’s tearing America apart today. And when populations with such fundamental, axiomatic differences in their ideas of what sort of nation they want to live in simply cannot get away from each other, as the Left and Right cannot do in America as it is currently configured, there is just going to be no end of trouble. Frankly, I think we can’t go on this way much longer.
Thanks, JK.
No more salvos – I think we have exhausted the subject.
Except to say: I saw the Jefferson Airplane at the Fillmore East shortly after Volunteers was recorded. Awesome show. Also got Jorma’s new CD a while back. You should check it out.
Well Malcolm, I am not sure what you mean by “disservice”, but since I did not claim to know that Peter was insincere, only that he doesn’t “come across” as one who is sincere (which is how it seems to me), I don’t think that constitutes a “great disservice”.
I do admit his knack for arguing his side well, especially his dexterity at cherry-picking the points he argues. This is precisely why he comes across as a skilled debater, rather than a sincere presenter of his views.
I am puzzled that someone as articulate and intelligent as he clearly is can be so devoted to such a disreputable worldview.
Well, that puzzles me too, but there it is. I’m sure he’s just as puzzled about me. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Good night, Malcolm.
From democrats:
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif
Also, an eye-opener from Andrew Bolt, and DO NOT MISS THE UPDATES:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/palin_framed/
OK, everyone: Michelle Malkin has a roundup that ought to put all this moral-high-ground-for-the-Left buncombe to rest once and for all, here.
A nice compilation. http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
Interesting story here: http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html