It's hard not to like this

Comments

[larry kurtz]

This is NOT Ken Blanchard, Steve Sibson, or Bob Ellis.

[larry kurtz]

Here's some fascinating reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-d-ellison/why-arent-we-calling-loug_b_806729.html

http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/a-murder-the-media-will-help-bury/

[Jimi]

A picture only a Mother could love! The distrubing thing that has come out about this is that the parents are claiming they had no idea thier son was so ill.

I find that hard to believe!

I do not blame them for his actions, but hindsight is always 20/20, and I would bet that there were tip-offs in his behavior, tip-offs that could have led to counseling, medication, therapy or institutionalization that may have helped prevent all this.

[duggersd]

Jimi, I read an article earlier today http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/12/national/main7238536.shtml that tells how his dad chased him into the desert just before the shootings (6 hours?). I think they had a very good idea as to how disturbed he was, but I also suspect, like most parents, they were somewhat in denial as to what was happening with him. I do feel for the parents in the regard they will have to live with the actions of their son.

[William]

It's become very difficult, perhaps more difficult than it should be, to institutionalize someone involuntarily. Until one is a proven danger, usually through an overt act of violence (when it's too late), it's almost impossible to have someone forced into a treatment facility.

[larry kurtz]

Barnes, maybe you should check yourself in. This another red state phenomenon, Willy.

[William]

Larry,

I can certainly see why you might be concerned, should it become easier to involuntarily commit individuals that publicly demonstrate odd, disturbing, irrational and delusional behavior.

If memory serves me correctly, didn't you post some comments on another political blog last year that were reported to the FBI?

[larry kurtz]

Hopefully, Willy. As ip has said in a myriad other blogs: Nothing frightens me as much as Trooper Oxner does. South Dakota is a loathesome place; spending anymore time in that wretched state is punishment enough for you people. Spearditch is a sentence no one should have to endure. How Newquist and Blanchard withstand Aberdeen is a profound mystery.

[A.I.]

So KB, you think it unfair the media is conflating Loughner's actions and Right wing/Tea Party rhetoric. On a scale of one to ten, just how unfair is it? Is it more unfair than giving credence to a concept as ludicrous as death panels? Is it more unfair than elevating a political movement centered around in-exact (a charitable adjective if ever one existed) slogans like "I want my country back"?

Opportunist extaordinaire Sarah (blood libel) Palin and the anger-centric Tea Party(s) rose to prominence on the back of an unfair and indiscriminate press. That same press seems poised to be their undoing--and rightly so.

[Bill Fleming]

I think it's curious that KB was so adamant about the meaninglessness of this event and yet has posted about nothing else since. What's up with that, Doc?

[William]

AI, do you personally know anyone associated with, or that self-identifies as "Tea Party"? I'll agree that those of us that identify as "Tea Party" are angry in a sense, but what are we angry about? Out of control government spending, a failed political class that displays contempt for the Constitution and for the public they're supposedly representing, that passes complex legislation affecting 1/6 of the national economy unread, that desires the power to micro-manage every aspect of life by a distant and disconnected centralized political class of self identified elites? I'm not so much ANGRY, as I am concerned that the America we may leave our heirs will be a shattered mess, with the American Dream an American Nightmare of our own making. The "Progressives" of today demonstrate blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings.

BF, it's late and perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears to me that KB has posted on the Left's reactions to this tragic act of lunacy, not about the "meaninglessness of this event".

[Bill Fleming]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - The Other William

[William]

BF,

I'm no "lady", at best I'm a "dame"! - lol

[Bill Fleming]

Whatever you are, you're a good one, William. :>]

[KB]

A.I.: Reason seems to have deserted you. How can the press be unfair and indiscriminate at the same time? As I Byron York has shown, the Press was very discriminate and very unfair in reacting to two shootings. In the Fort Hood incident, the press bent over backwards not to speculate about Islamic motives even when the motive was obvious. In the case of the Tucson shooting, the Press was speculating about the connection between the shooter and Sarah Palin without a shred of evidence to connect the two. Nothing can be so clearly discriminate and unfair as that.

As for the Tea Party positions you mention, do you think that the Press is supposed to behave like an explicitly political movement? If so, the New York Times and CNN have no problem by you. They seem to pretend that their job is something else. The "death panel" charge was over the top, as propaganda tends to be; but it was based on a point. The promotion of euthanasia to cut costs has occurred in other health care systems. As for taking our country back, that is boiler plate American rhetoric.

[Bill Fleming]

KB, maybe we need to go beyond reason on this one. The meaning here is perhaps ineffable, but we can catch a glimpse of it by considering an ironic coincidence. 9 year old Christina Taylor Green was born on 9/11/01. At the time, that meant something. She, and 49 others born that day relieved our terror with their innocence and gave us hope for future generations, even as we pondered the unspeakable horrors that happened that same day. of course there was no cause and effect relationship there. But the two simultaneous events symbolized the best and the worst of us in the national zeitgeist.

Her death at the hands of yet another insane zealot seems at first to crush that hope. But then again, we dig deeper and again find it, anchor ourselves, and move through yet another difficult passage.

Each time we do this, we unite... At least most of us do... For a while at least, to protect ourselves, and to give each other solace.

And yes, we look for reasons why unspeakable things happen... Things like birth and death, love and hate, joy and sorrow, and share our thoughts with each other. Many of these thoughts are seemingly meaningless. But they are far from it. They are the thoughts and hopes and fears of human beings under stress. Together those thoughts coalesce to define, and sometimes help us redefine, who we are as we create, and sometimes recreate ourselves. Unlike you, I don't find any of this meaningless. Instead, if I may perhaps coin a word, I find metameaning in it. That which informs our very ability to reason. Our ground of being. Our very communal Self.

[Bill Fleming]

That much said, we are now perhaps in the metaspace... A place where we can have a conversation about our conversation... A place where there are no fingers to point because they are all, if just for a moment, pointed at ourselves.

[Jimi]

A.I.

"Instead, if I may perhaps coin a word, I find metameaning in it. That which informs our very ability to reason."

And what exactly are you reasoning out of this?

[Jimi]

Ooops!

Bill Fleming,

"Instead, if I may perhaps coin a word, I find metameaning in it. That which informs our very ability to reason."

And what exactly are you reasoning out of this?

[A.I.]

Who's lost the ability to reason KB? You seem to think I was responding to a previous post rather your what Loughner is not cartoon. As the cartoon points out, a whole lot of journalists got or are getting a lot of things wrong. The reason is a failure to "discriminate" between fact and supposition which, in this case, is "unfair" to folks like Sarah Palin and Tea Party followers because no direct link has been established between their rhetoric and Loughner's actions. So no, indiscriminate and unfair are not mutually exclusive terms.

My point though is that any unfairness is limited to this incident. It was no less unfair that indiscriminate "journalists" helped give credibility to an anti-intellectual, self-absorbed nobody like Sarah--Katie Couric not withstanding. Nor was the press particularly critical in its analysis of the Tea Party which, like Sarah, portrayed and continues to portray Obama and Democrats as illegitimate leaders out to destroy America--in other words, treasonous subversives who by logical extension deserve no credence and should be executed.

So now that the proverbial worm seems to be turning, do two "unfairnesses" make a fair? I really don't know, but I must confess I am feeling a bit of schadenfreude as Sarah and the Tea Party whine about their "unjust" persecution.

By the way, just what country(ies) is/are employing euthanasia to cut costs of publicly-funded health care programs--or are you referring to Arizona? And since when is "taking our country back" boilerplate rhetoric--which I take to imply it is rhetoric that has been used for many years?

William, I also am concerned and sometimes angry. My concern is not that progressives or, for that matter conservatives, will destroy the American dream. My belief is that a given problem may best be addressed by a progressive policy under certain circumstances or by a conservative one under another set or some combination of the two. My concern is we will choose leaders that instead believe in a one size fits all ideology that will fail to deal with current and future challenges.

[Bill Fleming]

Jimi, are you familiar with the branch of philosophy called "phenomenology?" If not, do you know what I mean when I say "axiomatic" or "a priori"? I need to know where you're at in your understanding of these concepts before I can try to answer your question properly. No need to write more than I have to, you know? If you know what I'm saying with the above three terms, there is your answer.

[larry kurtz]

Bill, are you the Mac/Safari? Wish you'd leave a comment.

[Jimi]

Bill,

Only familiar if I work from these definitions:

Axiomatic - Obvious without having to argue or prove.

Priori - A Theory not based on hard facts.

[Jimi]

A.I.

"It was no less unfair that indiscriminate "journalists" helped give credibility to an anti-intellectual, self-absorbed nobody like Sarah."

Excuse Me! She happends to be more qualified for the Position than your current President. Why don't we compare resumes between Obama and Palin to determine who has credibility?

"Obama and Democrats as illegitimate leaders out to destroy America"

Their stated goals were "Change." Why don't you explain to the rest of us, exactly what "Change" they refered to? Besides they also have stated goals of Single Payer, which clearly is a freedom and economics issue, that clearly is not sustainable and puts the economic system that allows for Liberty & Free Will at stake.

"should be executed"

You said it!...Now where the hell is the evidence?

"Sarah and the Tea Party whine about their "unjust" persecution."

No.....two Wrongs don't make a Right, and what exactly is just about factless accusation?

"My concern is we will choose leaders that instead believe in a one size fits all ideology that will fail to deal with current and future challenges."

You don't seem to be bothered that the "Progressive Philosophy" has had control for four years, and a Super Majority in the past two, but yet you go on the attack of people who haven't even been allowed a chance to participate lately. It couldn't be that your definiton of compromise is that it's up to conservatives to compromise on their positions could it?

[larry kurtz]

While i think this is pure partisan bullshit, it is very gracious: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/01/14/132945011/mccain-thanks-obama-defends-palin-in-washington-post?ft=1&f=1001

[KB]

Bill: The Tucson shooting may have been meaningless as I say; that dozens of pundits on the left scurrilously exploited the event to support their narrative about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin and that CNN and the New York Times joined the bandwagon, that means something.

A.I.: I must repeat my previous answer. The Press (CNN & NYT) and the pundits (Krugman et. al.) who were so scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions after the Fort Hood Shooting and so unscrupulous after the Tucson shooting were not being indiscriminate. They were discriminating in a very calculated and transparent manner.

Your notion that the Press (let alone your hero Krugman) were uncritical in their treatment of Sarah Palin or the Tea Party is utter nonsense. The former were vehemently hostile to the latter. I am no fan of Palin, but she was a candidate for Vice President. She was also a political force in the recent election. The Press would have been remiss not to cover her. It hardly did so uncritically, as recent events illustrate.

The Tea Party movement was a force in that same election. The Press did everything it could to find dirt on Tea Party people. Imagine for a moment that Tea Party rallies were sponsored by an openly fascist organization. That would be front page news in very paper in the country. Contrast that with the coverage of anti-war rallies. How many papers reported that the ANSWER coalition that organized many of those rallies is fond of North Korea?

The Press is indeed unfair. It is hardly indiscriminate.

[Bill Fleming]

Sorry, KB, I just can't get with you on the shootings being meaningless. As I said previously, the whole situation is pregnant with meaning on any number of levels, as evidenced by our nation's continuing discussion of it. Even the attempt to dismiss the event as meaningless has meaning.

[KB]

Bill: if you can explain how Sarah Palin or the New York Times explains the actions of one Jared Lee Loughner, then I will concede that his actions were meaningful. There are a lot of questions connected with this event that are worthy of discussion. Someone who thinks that this proves we need stricter gun control or better a mental health care regime may have a point. Loughner himself is just something that happened. That is the hole point of being five kinds of crackers: your behavior isn't rational enough to be interpreted.

[Bill Fleming]

KB. Good point. Maybe that's why they call it "crazy."