I just found out that the pond scum Phelps church is going to be there at the funerals to 'protest'. A bunch of people in Az will be there too, to keep them as far away from the site as possible. If you are from az and want to get involved, here is the site:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-will-n ... l&filter=3
Im going to try to get off on Thurs, I dearly want to go to this.
Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Arizona tragedy...A humbling Comment
The shooter WAS crazy and there ain't no getting around that. In fact the community college he went to told him to a doctor cause he was so messed up and they wouldn't let him back until he had seen help.
Plus he went to the Sen. before and asked her some rambling question that he didn't like the answer too. So perhaps he already had it in for her.
I don't think you can blame Palin for this incident. Do I think the cross hairs idea was good? Nope. But to blame her for this? It ain't all her fault.
Many have said lets get of crazy talk. Fine. But that's censorship, which isn't a grand idea for me. Plus you can't penilize one side without the other.
Plus he went to the Sen. before and asked her some rambling question that he didn't like the answer too. So perhaps he already had it in for her.
I don't think you can blame Palin for this incident. Do I think the cross hairs idea was good? Nope. But to blame her for this? It ain't all her fault.
Many have said lets get of crazy talk. Fine. But that's censorship, which isn't a grand idea for me. Plus you can't penilize one side without the other.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/
Im not blaming her per se - she and Beck and others are simply examples of what has happened to discourse in this country. Yeah, we've got some lefty flakes, but the left doesn't have a party supported tv channel that runs 24/7 with stunts just like this. No I don't want censorship. I want people taking responsibility and thinking about what they are saying and/or implying.
The media is a big culprit here, has been for years. They take two opposite sides of an issue, the most extreme sides they can find, put them together for a 'debate' that does nothing but polarize people, showing none of the nuances of different sides and thoughts about the issue. Its become so common place that people who actually don't think like that feel they have no voice, or are afraid to use their voice for fear of being attacked. I want the media to become journalists, to actually report news without commentary, to give us the kind of facts we need to make reasonable conclusions. Its been done before
Look, I just want it all toned down. Its too crazy out there, too mean, too frightening. There is no reason why a politician needs to promote violence or dehumanize opponents (calling Obama a socialist or Hitler for example) to get their message across. Stick to the issues, stick to the facts, and I bet more people will actually listen, and maybe actually go to the polls. As it is, I think anyone who goes into seeking public office now has to be thinking twice about what in the hell they are walking into. Its bad enough that the media has gone to great lengths to dig up anything sensational about a candidate and milk it for all its worth. But now candidates have to deal with the kind of threats that have them thinking that maybe its all just not worth it to them or their families. And so we get less and less stable, intelligent politicians, and are left with the government we I guess deserve.
The media is a big culprit here, has been for years. They take two opposite sides of an issue, the most extreme sides they can find, put them together for a 'debate' that does nothing but polarize people, showing none of the nuances of different sides and thoughts about the issue. Its become so common place that people who actually don't think like that feel they have no voice, or are afraid to use their voice for fear of being attacked. I want the media to become journalists, to actually report news without commentary, to give us the kind of facts we need to make reasonable conclusions. Its been done before
Look, I just want it all toned down. Its too crazy out there, too mean, too frightening. There is no reason why a politician needs to promote violence or dehumanize opponents (calling Obama a socialist or Hitler for example) to get their message across. Stick to the issues, stick to the facts, and I bet more people will actually listen, and maybe actually go to the polls. As it is, I think anyone who goes into seeking public office now has to be thinking twice about what in the hell they are walking into. Its bad enough that the media has gone to great lengths to dig up anything sensational about a candidate and milk it for all its worth. But now candidates have to deal with the kind of threats that have them thinking that maybe its all just not worth it to them or their families. And so we get less and less stable, intelligent politicians, and are left with the government we I guess deserve.
Last edited by Ash on Tue January 11th, 2011, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I really like Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, and not just because his views often match mine. Its because of all the commentators out there, he is thoughtful and sincere in what he has to say, asks good questions and he thinks nothing about giving the media a spanking or two no matter what side of the aisle they might be on. This is a clip of the first 10 minutes of his show last night. I think what he has to say about this weeks tragedy will resonate with many here. Even if you don't like him, watch this. I'd be interested in reactions to it (you might not want to watch what comes after his monologue, tho I thought Jon Oliver's bit was quite good as well)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
If you read this after 11 pm tonight, go to the link and look for Monday nights episode.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
If you read this after 11 pm tonight, go to the link and look for Monday nights episode.
-
Kveto from Prague
- Compulsive Reader
- Posts: 920
- Joined: September 2008
- Location: Prague, Bohemia
[quote=""Ash""]Kveto, not only did Palin have that map on her website (it is still on Huffington Post if you want to see it), but her opponent had an event called 'Target Gifford', where he invited people to shoot a gun at a target (not with a gifford picture but the the link could be easily inferred).
I am a member of the ACLU, so inhibiting free speech is hard for me. And yet - the 'church' of that family protesting at a soldiers funeral (they plan to attend the funeral of the young girl killed Saturday, and they tried to attend the Eliz Edwards funeral but were held back by masses of people) repells me to no end. So while I really think we need to back up and become more civil, I am not sure I in good consciense could demand that they do.[/quote]
Thanks for the answer, Ash. And I apologise if Im using you as my window to american politics. Over here We often get the "what" of the news but not often the "why".
I agree its an unknowable answer. I dont think anyone can be held legally responsible for the actions of another. but you would think some moral responsibility would filter in there. Shouldnt people feel some guilt morally?
Another qiuck question: Does the term "blood libel" have a different meaning over there? I've only ever seen it used in an anti-semetic manner. Is whatshername trying to equate herself to the persecution of jews somehow? Am I missing something?
I am a member of the ACLU, so inhibiting free speech is hard for me. And yet - the 'church' of that family protesting at a soldiers funeral (they plan to attend the funeral of the young girl killed Saturday, and they tried to attend the Eliz Edwards funeral but were held back by masses of people) repells me to no end. So while I really think we need to back up and become more civil, I am not sure I in good consciense could demand that they do.[/quote]
Thanks for the answer, Ash. And I apologise if Im using you as my window to american politics. Over here We often get the "what" of the news but not often the "why".
I agree its an unknowable answer. I dont think anyone can be held legally responsible for the actions of another. but you would think some moral responsibility would filter in there. Shouldnt people feel some guilt morally?
Another qiuck question: Does the term "blood libel" have a different meaning over there? I've only ever seen it used in an anti-semetic manner. Is whatshername trying to equate herself to the persecution of jews somehow? Am I missing something?
But the name calling has always been around since Day 1 of this country. That will never change. NOw we can get things more easily. Everything is NOW. The shooting if it had happened in the 80s may have been a story on the nightly news for the hour or whatever and we would have moved on. We wouldn't have the endless CNN, MSNBC(which BTW, is VERY liberal) FOX etc. etc. milking the story for every minute.
The guy was crazy. was it really political talk that got him uppity? Or was it some delusional idea he had from long ago about not trusting the government? Was it right wing talk that pushed him over the edge? Is that like saying Ice T is responsible for killing cops because of his song Cop Killer?
If we are going to change the political landscape how about we get news reporters who actually report the news instead of giving me their gems of wisdom on subjects. For instance Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow can zip it as well as the others if we are going to get rid of em all.
The guy was crazy. was it really political talk that got him uppity? Or was it some delusional idea he had from long ago about not trusting the government? Was it right wing talk that pushed him over the edge? Is that like saying Ice T is responsible for killing cops because of his song Cop Killer?
If we are going to change the political landscape how about we get news reporters who actually report the news instead of giving me their gems of wisdom on subjects. For instance Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow can zip it as well as the others if we are going to get rid of em all.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/
-
Kveto from Prague
- Compulsive Reader
- Posts: 920
- Joined: September 2008
- Location: Prague, Bohemia
[quote=""Ash""]No, the meaning is the same as you are thinking. And yes, I think thats exactly what she is doing. Otherwise she wouldn't have used that term.[/quote]
Wow. To compare some media criticisim to false accusations of Jews killing christain babies. It's just wow.
And I personally find a huge difference between regular name calling "so and so is stupid", which anyone who voluntarily enters the public sphere (such as politicians and actors) must subject themselves to, and actually calling for violence against a person, (even tongue in cheek) which is beyond the pale, IMO.
Wow. To compare some media criticisim to false accusations of Jews killing christain babies. It's just wow.
And I personally find a huge difference between regular name calling "so and so is stupid", which anyone who voluntarily enters the public sphere (such as politicians and actors) must subject themselves to, and actually calling for violence against a person, (even tongue in cheek) which is beyond the pale, IMO.
[quote=""Divia""]B
The guy was crazy. was it really political talk that got him uppity? Or was it some delusional idea he had from long ago about not trusting the government? Was it right wing talk that pushed him over the edge? Is that like saying Ice T is responsible for killing cops because of his song Cop Killer?
[/quote] I think there has been much too much of a rush to tie what this guy did to the ugly political rhetoric that goes on. It is not known what his true motives were, the FBI is still investigating. I heard tonight on the news that they're finding evidence that looks like he has been fixated/obsessed with Gabby Giffords for quite some time. Some neighbors of the Loughners were interviewed, who said the family has kept itself pretty much isolated from the neighborhood. So there might very well have been some unhealthy things going on in the home and the family that contributed to the guy's mental instability.
The guy was crazy. was it really political talk that got him uppity? Or was it some delusional idea he had from long ago about not trusting the government? Was it right wing talk that pushed him over the edge? Is that like saying Ice T is responsible for killing cops because of his song Cop Killer?
[/quote] I think there has been much too much of a rush to tie what this guy did to the ugly political rhetoric that goes on. It is not known what his true motives were, the FBI is still investigating. I heard tonight on the news that they're finding evidence that looks like he has been fixated/obsessed with Gabby Giffords for quite some time. Some neighbors of the Loughners were interviewed, who said the family has kept itself pretty much isolated from the neighborhood. So there might very well have been some unhealthy things going on in the home and the family that contributed to the guy's mental instability.