Any soundbite, article, lecture or editorial that begins with some variation of “Sarah Palin [or Rush Limbaugh, or the Tea Parties etc] “didn’t pull the trigger but…” is either rank intellectual laziness or, more likely, a slimy or irresponsible attempt to exploit this crime for a political agenda.
Unlike, say, the issues of mental illness or gun control, there is no fair-minded reason to turn this into a debate about Palin. There is simply no known basis in fact that Loughner was inspired by Palin’s map or any of the other alleged incitements.
Feeling that it should be otherwise is not a legitimate reason to say it is otherwise. And every journalistic outfit who thinks they’re being fair by covering the “debate” evenhandedly misses this basic point. You can’t cover a debate that shouldn’t exist in the first place “fairly.” What we have here is a variant of the “when did you stop beating your wife” question. There is no evidence of any kind of wife-beating, but we still get stories that read something like this: “…some say X does beat his wife, while others point out there is zero direct evidence of wife-beating. Still, the controversy does raise larger questions about the climate of wife-beating and X’s responsibility for it.”
It’s like covering the “debate” over whether the Jews secretly launched the 9/11 attacks. Once you’ve engaged a yes-v-no argument that takes both “sides” seriously, you’ve done more harm than good.
This is becoming one of those litmus test issues where anyone who engages even in the "well we have to have a debate" line of argumentation should no longer be taken seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomewhere in The Corner I want to see: "Henry was furious when he found out what Becket had done. He is said to have shouted out "will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest ?" Four knights heard what Henry had shouted and took it to mean that the king wanted Becket dead. They rode to Canterbury to carry out the deed."
So I'll post it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKinda' like Axelrod's response to the question:
"Do you have any proof that the Chamber of Commerce accepts foreign donations?"
Axelrod: "Do you have any proof that they do not?"
Aherm, Mr. Axelrod, you are the one making the accusations. Therefore you are the one who needs to come up with the proof. See?
That's how it works in the United States of America, a nation under the rule of law and the principle, "innocent until PROVEN guilty."
See, Mr. Axelrod?
You cannot throw around wild accusations with no proof. Not in America.
And see MSM?
You are the ones pinning the shooters actions to Palin and the tea party. Therefore YOU are the ones who must prove the connection.
And therefore, sadly, YOU have wasted much of the nation's time going down the rabbit hole of nothingness when real investigation could have been taking place.
See, MSM?
You cannot throw around wild accusations with no proof. Not in America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish I had a time machine so I could travel into the future and find out when the official story became, "In January 2011, Jared Lee Loughner, an anti-government loner inspired by the fiery rhetoric of the "Tea Party" leader Sarah Palin, opened fire on a crowd gathered to meet with U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killing six and wounding 12." 2020 sounds about right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely correct. There is no reason that something should be debated that does not exist in fact.
However just because something does not exist in fact does not mean that people will not debate about it. For instance, the Obama is a Muslim debate, the Obama and American citizen debate, the Bush administration and 911 attacks, etc.
Also, one persons facts tends to be another ones opinion. This form of "debate" is not going to change anytime soon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would involve granting an enormous amount of undue credit to idiots to actually believe this, but sometimes I wonder if it might be a coordinated effort from the word "GO!" to shape what will be ultimately printed in the history books, er, Wikipedia.
Give it a little while. It will be declared "settled science" soon enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would involve granting an enormous amount of undue credit to idiots to actually believe this, but sometimes I wonder if it might be a coordinated effort from the word "GO!" to shape what will ultimately be printed in the history books, er, Wikipedia.
Give it a little while. It will be declared "settled science" soon enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the ultimate question that will test the integrity of shills such as Millbank (actually, that will reveal the lack of it): Will you insist that we ban books such as “Animal Farm” and “Brave New World” since Jared Loughner listed these as those books that influenced him most? Until you say so, all of your attacks on Palin, Beck, and others just reveal your petty political opportunism under the guise of liberal sanctimony.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@180 Out-- yeah, perhaps accompanied by a Danziger cartoon.
Seems to me our President could, er, "reset" the tenor of this degenerating dialogue.
Might make it less likely that 2020 history book could perpetuate a lie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is similar to a point I've made several times over the past couple days. The right has been caught up in defending Palin and, by extension, her map, when there really is no need to do so. Since there is no evidence to suggest that the map incited the shooter, there is no point in arguing whether or not the map was appropriate or not. This cedes too much ground to the left.
We might as well be arguing about whether or not Xenu, midichlorians, or green jello were responsible for inciting the shooter since there is just about as much evidence for any of those things as there is for Palin's map.
The only thing the right needs to say is that Sarah Palin is in no way responsible. Case closed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you employ emotional thinking instead of logic, you must commonly create false arguments which you pretend are balanced to disguise the fact you have no real argument, only a feeling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is this even connected to gun control? Had the local police done their job and responded to the multiple death threats he had issued before, he would not have been able to legally get his hand on a gun.
I think we definitely need to have a discussion about how to deal with the mentally ill, but I also don't think that will happen so long as the left and their lapdogs in the press are determined to use this atrocity to suppress dissent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's what we need to do.
In response to EVERY assertion of this b.s. argument that somehow conservative ideas and politics had anything at all to do with this tragic shooting, we simply repeat the following:
"Yeah, but, the guy is NUTS!"
Try it. Over and over and over again.
By the third time they come back at you with their b.s., add this:
"Yeah, but, the guy is NUTS...and if you repeat that again, so are you."
It really is that simple--the truth, I mean. And it really is the only answer to the lies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would take it one step further. Not only is there no evidence that Palin's "map" or whatever else she might have said has anything to do with this, but even if there WERE some evidence, so what? She publishes a map with targets (actually I don't think they are targets, or gunsites, but whatever). What if the guy claims he saw that map and that is why he did it (he is crazy enough he just might say so!). So? Does that mean she is evil for publishing the map? We are ceding way too much ground here.
It is dangerous to point out that there is no linking evidence, as it misses the main arguemnt. Kind of like pointing out that unemployment is high as proof that the stimulus failed. Unemployment could come down...it still doesn't make the stimulus good policy.
www.DDDinMN.wordpress.com
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesomething I'm curious about, would these same people that try to try Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck rhetoric to setting a crazy person off implying they are indirectly responsible have also supported the accusations (and criminal/civil trials) that artists like Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne were responsible for causing teenagers to commit suicide? Were they eager to ban and punish them? We may never know. One thing is for sure, I don't remember anyone blaming Scorsese or De niro for the attempted assassination of Reagan, but I suppose if it happened a couple years earlier, they might have tried. And those are only loosely tied examples. This whacko has absolutely no visible ties to any political philosophy, apart from MLB beaming into his brainpan via satellite, reading his thoughts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProjection, pure and simple. Right wing speech causes these commentators such apoplexy that they wish to lash out violently. They assume that everyone has the same reaction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, I agree with your point that "wondering" out loud if 'Sarah Palin is inciting violence in the lunatic fringe (matt lauer's words)' is simply slander/calumny by proxy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Any soundbite, article, lecture or editorial that begins with some variation of “Sarah Palin [or Rush Limbaugh, or the Tea Parties etc] “didn’t pull the trigger but…” is either rank intellectual laziness or, more likely, a slimy or irresponsible attempt to exploit this crime for a political agenda."
Please link to any "soundbite,article,lecture or editorial"
that begins that way please.
Just because you'd like for liberals to be doing this, doesn't make it so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a New York Times article "Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin", Published: January 15, 2011 it was stated that, "His (Jared Loughner) anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."
So there is some correlation between what Loughner believed and those of Chris Matthews and other leftist who preached a vitriolic hatred of George Bush. It sounds like their ranting and raving did have an influence on Loughner, where none seem to come from Palin and others on the right. If anyone should be blamed for at least influencing Loughner's thought (not his actions) it would be the left in this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse