mythbusters

Thanks for the link Tally

‘titillating their audiences with hints of justified violence’

Jacob Weisberg (Slate): There’s something offensive, as well as pointless, about the politically charged inquiry into what might have been swirling inside the head of Jared Loughner …. it is appropriate, however, to consider what was swirling outside Loughner’s head.

…the context was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn’t program Loughner…. but the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react … in the crazy way he did.

At the core of the far right’s culpability is its ongoing attack on the legitimacy of U.S. government — a venomous campaign not so different from the backdrop to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 … it is this, rather than violent rhetoric per se, that is the most dangerous aspect of right-wing extremism.

…Conservative entertainers like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like to titillate their audiences with hints of justified violence, including frequent reminders that they are armed and dangerous. Palin went so far as to put a target on someone who subsequently got shot. Whether or not the man who fired the gun was inspired by Palin isn’t the point. The point is that you shouldn’t paint targets on people, even in metaphor, or jest.

Guns are also at the heart of how the right’s ideology enabled Loughner. Tea Partiers often frame the right to bear arms as a necessary check on federal despotism … First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country. Then you make easy for them to get guns.

But if you really want trouble, you should also make it hard for them to get treatment for mental illness …. if Republicans succeed in repealing the Obama health care bill, that’s how it will remain.

Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening … it is the right that amuses itself with violent chat and proclaims an injured innocence when its flammable words blow up.

Read the full article here

outside view

The Irish Times

double standards

Washington Monthly: RIGHT FOCUSES ON DUPNIK…. On Saturday night in Tucson, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik lamented societal factors — most notably, the toxicity of our political discourse — that he fears may have contributed to the day’s violence.

….It appears many conservatives believed the sheriff was referring to them, and began responding in kind.

…Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he didn’t think the sheriff’s words “had any part in a law enforcement briefing.” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he was “disappointed” in the sheriff. Conservative talk show host Neal Boortz said Dupnik was looking for political gain, and Fox News anchor — in an interview with the sheriff — wondered aloud why he would “inject political speculation” into the story.

And that’s really just the start. Dupnik has also drawn fire from Malkin, Red State, one of the Breitbart outlets, and National Review, among others.

It’s not entirely surprising the right wouldn’t care for the sheriff’s concerns, but (a) they hardly seemed excessive, under the circumstances and they weren’t partisan in the slightest; and (b) if conservatives are really concerned about intemperate rhetoric from Arizona sheriffs, Dupnik is hardly Exhibit A.

As John Cole noted, “Oddly enough, I’ve never seen wingnuts react this way to any of Joe Arpaio’s briefings.”

What’s more, as Media Matters noted, conservative outlets have “repeatedly praised a different Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu, who regularly engages in vitriolic attacks against President Obama and Democrats.”

Read the full article here

Thank you Ladyhawke for the link

hello tea party people

Thanks so much Tea Partiers for trying to comment here and defend Sarah Palin with your delightful Tea Party language – but sorry, we like to keep this place a Tea Party-free zone (you have plenty of other places to play).

But to the two guys who insisted – as Palin’s spokeswoman did – that they were “surveyor’s symbols” on that map targeting Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other Democrats….. a story they only came up with after the shootings …. well, someone disagreed with you as far back as November:

Mind you, she didn’t even get that right: they weren’t bulleyes, they were, quite obviously, crosshairs …. no mention of “surveyor’s symbols” though. And remember the accompanying Tweet from Palin – “don’t retreat, RELOAD”? Since when do you reload surveyor’s symbols?

So, even if it could be proved that they were “surveyor’s symbols”, Palin thought they were targets.

You must try harder covering up for your Queen.