I came across a post which does a good job of defining violent rhetoric, on the Daily Kos.
And, while you read about violent rhetoric, please also read this post by the always incisive Joan McCarter of the Daily Kos, which highlights a few examples of violent rhetoric and why it almost certainly contributed to the actions of Saturday's killer in Arizona.
Showing posts with label violence in the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence in the United States. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
One Man's Killer Is Another Man's Disturbed Individual - UPDATED
Much has already been said to try and explain Jared Lee Louhgner's evil actions last Saturday in Arizona, and many theories have been advanced on what might have driven him to commit multiple murders. The theory that prevails on the left is that the vitriolic political climate might have had an effect on Loughner's actions, while the right has immediately coalesced around the "very disturbed individual" explanation. I admit that I am in the former camp, so I put my bias in the open. But I have one question for those who advocate the "very disturbed individual" explanation: Who, if not disturbed individuals, commit actions like Loughner's? And why does being disturbed immediately disqualify toxic influences as an explanation?
People who are not disturbed on some level do not walk into a Safeway with a semi-automatic weapon with the intent of killing as many people as possible, including a congresswoman. Sane people do not say: "Honey, I am going to Safeway to pick up some groceries and to commit multiple murders, I'll be back by lunch."
Alas, being disturbed and being prone to being incited by hate-speech to commit heinous acts are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is quite likely that people who suffer from some kind of mental illness characterized by aggression against others are particularly susceptible to incitement to commit violent acts. If this is true, then does it not follow that those who promote the demonization of their adversaries and violent imagery against them are complicit, even indirectly so, with the actions committed by the disturbed amongst us?
No one can seriously contend that Jim Adkisson, the man who shot and killed two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, was not a disturbed individual. But could books found on Adkisson bookshelf, like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by Michael Savage, or "Let Freedom Ring" by Sean Hannity, have had an effect on Adkisson's disturbed psyche? Is there a point where mental illness and violent rhetoric meet, pushing a disturbed individual to act out his evil ideas?
And not all those who commit heinous acts of violence can be indisputably accused of acting out of being disturbed. Take Scott Roeder, for example: he is the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor known to many anti-choicers (there is a different between being pro-life and being against abortion) as "Tiller the Killer", because he provided abortion services. Roeder may be a despicable individual, and in many's opinion a greatly disturbed individual, but he did not carry out murder because he was clinically or temporarily insane; he did it because he wanted to "protect the unborn." Therefore, saying that there is no link between the anti-choice rhetoric that portrays abortion as the destruction of a life and not as a legal medical service, or that speaks of murder instead of the voluntary termination of a pregnancy protected under Roe v. Wade, and the actions of Dr. Tiller would be disingenuous.
Was Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood killings, simply a disturbed individual, or was he acting out his rational but violent response to "the refusal of Hasan's superiors to process his requests that sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him"?
Actions, and words, do have consequences, however unintended and unpredictable. The Right's denial of any link between acts of violence and what people say or do, and the dismissal of such acts as the work of disturbed individuals do not invalidate the cause-and-effect relationship that often exists in these violent incidents.
We may eventually learn what led Loughner to act as he did last Saturday. Do not be surprised if a link can be established between his actions and the words of professional hatemongers on the right.
UPDATE:
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, makes many of the same points I made above in his typically impatient and acerbic way, and establishes a direct link between Loughner's killings and the right-wing's violent rhetoric.
People who are not disturbed on some level do not walk into a Safeway with a semi-automatic weapon with the intent of killing as many people as possible, including a congresswoman. Sane people do not say: "Honey, I am going to Safeway to pick up some groceries and to commit multiple murders, I'll be back by lunch."
Alas, being disturbed and being prone to being incited by hate-speech to commit heinous acts are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, it is quite likely that people who suffer from some kind of mental illness characterized by aggression against others are particularly susceptible to incitement to commit violent acts. If this is true, then does it not follow that those who promote the demonization of their adversaries and violent imagery against them are complicit, even indirectly so, with the actions committed by the disturbed amongst us?
No one can seriously contend that Jim Adkisson, the man who shot and killed two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, was not a disturbed individual. But could books found on Adkisson bookshelf, like "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by Michael Savage, or "Let Freedom Ring" by Sean Hannity, have had an effect on Adkisson's disturbed psyche? Is there a point where mental illness and violent rhetoric meet, pushing a disturbed individual to act out his evil ideas?
And not all those who commit heinous acts of violence can be indisputably accused of acting out of being disturbed. Take Scott Roeder, for example: he is the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas doctor known to many anti-choicers (there is a different between being pro-life and being against abortion) as "Tiller the Killer", because he provided abortion services. Roeder may be a despicable individual, and in many's opinion a greatly disturbed individual, but he did not carry out murder because he was clinically or temporarily insane; he did it because he wanted to "protect the unborn." Therefore, saying that there is no link between the anti-choice rhetoric that portrays abortion as the destruction of a life and not as a legal medical service, or that speaks of murder instead of the voluntary termination of a pregnancy protected under Roe v. Wade, and the actions of Dr. Tiller would be disingenuous.
Was Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood killings, simply a disturbed individual, or was he acting out his rational but violent response to "the refusal of Hasan's superiors to process his requests that sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him"?
Actions, and words, do have consequences, however unintended and unpredictable. The Right's denial of any link between acts of violence and what people say or do, and the dismissal of such acts as the work of disturbed individuals do not invalidate the cause-and-effect relationship that often exists in these violent incidents.
We may eventually learn what led Loughner to act as he did last Saturday. Do not be surprised if a link can be established between his actions and the words of professional hatemongers on the right.
UPDATE:
Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, makes many of the same points I made above in his typically impatient and acerbic way, and establishes a direct link between Loughner's killings and the right-wing's violent rhetoric.
Krugman, Kos On Political Climate and Arizona Killings
Rather than acknowledging that too much toxic talk--most, in fact--comes from the right wing of the political spectrum, the righties are circling the wagons and dusting off their Bill Ayers references to demonstrate that liberals are just as violent. They are calling the shooter a madmen and rejecting any link between his actions and the inflammatory rhetoric peddled mostly by conservative talking heads and politicians.
Two important posts about Arizona's killings.
One by Paul Krugman, Climate of Hate; the other one by Kos, Manufacturing false equivalencies.
Keep these two posts in mind when you hear conservative talk about how there is no link between violent rhetoric and killings, and how both sides are guilty of inflaming the instincts of crazy people.
Two important posts about Arizona's killings.
One by Paul Krugman, Climate of Hate; the other one by Kos, Manufacturing false equivalencies.
Keep these two posts in mind when you hear conservative talk about how there is no link between violent rhetoric and killings, and how both sides are guilty of inflaming the instincts of crazy people.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Arizona Shootings
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The Second Amendment Remedies Loons
It appears now clear that the shooter in today's spree at a Safeway in Tucson is a loon of the second amendment remedies kind. His My Space and You Tube pages seem to bear that out.
Whether the primary motivation for today's shooting spree is political or not (and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it is), this episode once again calls for a stop to the violent rhetoric employed by the right-wing, no longer just fringe but becoming mainstream day after day.
Think of the calls to second-amendment remedies invoked by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, in the November election. Think about the rhetoric of people like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all of whom demonize their political opponents, often suggesting the very essence and future of America is in jeopardy and that liberals must be stopped at all costs.
The curtain of denial erected by right-wing extremists and endorsed by respectable conservatives (a class seemingly going the way of dinosaurs) must fall.
The anti-intellectualism that many right-wingers boast of leads to ridiculing civil discourse and to the less balanced elements on the right-end of the political spectrum literally thinking that they must take up arms to defend the Constitution (which they do not understand), the nation (against anyone who has a different opinion) and the idea of an America so retrograde as to induce horror in those of a progressive mind. Their ideal of America is so fantastic as to elicit sympathy for those who have conceived it, and so out of touch with the actual past that the likely future invoked by demagogues seems all too real to the extremist wing of the conservative movement. Because, after all, those who know nothing of the real struggles, the real injustices and the real horror of the real past are doomed to repeat it.
Whether the primary motivation for today's shooting spree is political or not (and the circumstantial evidence suggests that it is), this episode once again calls for a stop to the violent rhetoric employed by the right-wing, no longer just fringe but becoming mainstream day after day.
Think of the calls to second-amendment remedies invoked by Harry Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle, in the November election. Think about the rhetoric of people like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all of whom demonize their political opponents, often suggesting the very essence and future of America is in jeopardy and that liberals must be stopped at all costs.
The curtain of denial erected by right-wing extremists and endorsed by respectable conservatives (a class seemingly going the way of dinosaurs) must fall.
The anti-intellectualism that many right-wingers boast of leads to ridiculing civil discourse and to the less balanced elements on the right-end of the political spectrum literally thinking that they must take up arms to defend the Constitution (which they do not understand), the nation (against anyone who has a different opinion) and the idea of an America so retrograde as to induce horror in those of a progressive mind. Their ideal of America is so fantastic as to elicit sympathy for those who have conceived it, and so out of touch with the actual past that the likely future invoked by demagogues seems all too real to the extremist wing of the conservative movement. Because, after all, those who know nothing of the real struggles, the real injustices and the real horror of the real past are doomed to repeat it.
Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot In Tucson
Chilling news from Arizona. A gunman shot Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) in the head at a Safeway in Arizona. Ms. Gifford is reportedly still alive and undergoing surgery. It is now also known that a federal judge was also shot and killed during this incident, and several others were injured (18 people, according to the Sheriff's office at a press conference).
A 22 year-old man has been detained for the shooting. The motive is still unclear, but Ms. Gifford's office was vandalized last year hours before the House vote on health care reform, so it is not inconceivable that this might be a politically motivated crime.
Newly-elected Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner said: "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." True, and before the motive is ascertained we all would do well to withhold judgement on this violent act. Still, the Tea-Party and the Republican Party have raised the violent rhetoric in recent years (think of the McCain-Palin rallies of 2008 and of the anti-health care reform rallies last year). Obviously right-wing politicians and activists carry a lot of the blame for the current violent climate, and for episodes such as the killing of Dr. Tiller, death threats to the President, and so forth, no statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
A 22 year-old man has been detained for the shooting. The motive is still unclear, but Ms. Gifford's office was vandalized last year hours before the House vote on health care reform, so it is not inconceivable that this might be a politically motivated crime.
Newly-elected Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner said: "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society." True, and before the motive is ascertained we all would do well to withhold judgement on this violent act. Still, the Tea-Party and the Republican Party have raised the violent rhetoric in recent years (think of the McCain-Palin rallies of 2008 and of the anti-health care reform rallies last year). Obviously right-wing politicians and activists carry a lot of the blame for the current violent climate, and for episodes such as the killing of Dr. Tiller, death threats to the President, and so forth, no statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)