Lexington's notebook

OK by me. Pax Sulfurensis?

There will always be sociopaths or mentally sick people in the US (or any other country for that matter) who are uninhibited enough to do terrible things to their fellow human beings - I think we can consider that a given.

Rancour or even hate in political discourse does not necessarily cause such events directly, but it certainly helps to create an unhealthy climate of similar emotions in society, especially if it is eagerly propagated by the media.

Such a climate causes two problems:
a) it may just tip some people over the edge into insanity and mayhem
b) the rabid background aggresiveness makes sociopaths stand out less, reducing the probability discovering or stopping them in time.

However, the single biggest cause of grief in my opinion - and this is where the US stands out - is the ease with which these dangerous people are able to get their hands on firearms. The fallout of tragic events like the one in Tuscon could be reduced by several orders of magnitude if all the guy had was a knife.

But this has been said a thousand times before, and still American politicians think nothing of posing for fotos with weapons cradled in their arms. And guess what - that is not going to change as long as a large enough part of the electorate still thinks it is cool to do so.

That said, I do agree that there is a lot to admire about the US, but it's not the direction the political discourse has developed in.

The party of personal responsibility is now saying Palin didn't put gun sights on Gifford...they were "surveyor's marks." Interesting; I guess the analogy they were going for is that here is that, "Here lie interesting points; go forth and study them more?" I'm sure.

I listen to a right-leaning talk show on my morning commute; I agree with many of their points and it's more about entertainment than anything else. But this morning they displayed Olympic like contortions in immediately denying any smidgeon of culpability from talk radio and incendiary political speech. Further, they crowed on about how they have to say, "How they really feel." I thought personal control and tempering one's response was the difference between a toddler and an adult.

My question is this: if speech is so powerless, why is the 1st amendment so important?

The glory of American discourse!

I'm encouraged the Englishman in Lexington sometimes misses the sober and authoritative tones of the taxpayer-funded BBC. But he's also excited by the vigour of the highly partisan cable networks.

OneAegis,

You made that almost identical comment on DiA's Bleeding Arizona. You are completely off-topic. What does your statement below have to do with the point of this post?

"The party of personal responsibility is now saying Palin didn't put gun sights on Gifford...they were "surveyor's marks." Interesting; I guess the analogy they were going for is that here is that, "Here lie interesting points; go forth and study them more?" I'm sure."

The British do most of arguing in the House of Commons. PM Question time offers that outlet. Most American Congressmen/Senators rarely field questions from other politicians, so the press makes up for it. I have watched televised sessions in the Senate and it makes people want to go to sleep. Its incredibly boring. Given the fast frenzied nature of everything else in America, I guess the press has to make things interesting.

Rove's 50%+1 politics brought the ugliness of the Right-wingnuts into the mainstream. Even back in the days when the Democrats wandered off into Left field, nothing like that happened.

Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It is too easy now for people to retreat into an echo chamber of their own prejudices. It would be better for us all if every political assertion were answered immediately. Knowing that an answer will come ought alone to encourage more reasonable discourse.

Lex, if you have not read William Safire's book "Scandalmonger," you should; you're apparently something of a throwback to your own William Cobbett, who was in the middle of that pamphleteering war in 1790s Philadelphia. Hurrah for the vigorous Englishmen!

Dr. Frost, I'd like to point out that mass shootings by lunatics have occurred in places where it's vastly more difficult than the norm to get a gun, like the U.K. and Japan, and largely have not in places like Canada, Switzerland, Iceland and Israel, where guns in the house are not uncommon. And the gunowners I know are all law-and-order types who are only fanatics about firearm safety. Perhaps when guns are common and not a political grandstanding opportunity, it leads to saner talk about them and better supervision and training?

@ bismarck111

Debate is rare in the US. It was quite a pleasure when Obama got both parties in the same room for a debate. A bit like question time in the UK. This should become institutionalised.

It meant those speaking would be heard by all America, rather than just their fan base. Up till then, a politician would stand up in congress, make a speech playing to the gallery, then shuffle out to the steps of congress to be interviewed by his favourite TV station. No one ever challenged what he said.

So we end up with two camps, neither of which really hears what the other says. – so yes America is uniquely argumentative – but often the argument (it is not debate) involves two opposing groups who don’t listen to or even hear each other over the shouting.

Things tend to get hysterical, especially when egged on by the dysfunctional and irresponsible media whose objective appears to create conflict to sell news, rather than report on it, or find a middle ground.

Once something has a label that has a negative connotation from the other’s point of view, anything associated with it is verboten.

Things tend to be black vs. white, good versus evil, or packaged as American vs. un-American.

I know this is simplistic, but debating against a closed mind is a futile exercise – everything is like debating whether god exists or not.

Looking forward to following this one: PARIS: Batman has battled many enemies but now has to face the anger of right-wing U.S. bloggers furious that the comic book caped crusader has recruited a Muslim to run his crime-fighting franchise in Paris.

Who said we Americans didn't have an ironic sense of humour?

Mad, the media do not "create conflict to sell news." They create conflict to sell advertising. Any news involvement is strictly coincidental.

It's a small matter of no consequence to your point, but I think guns are under a hard ban in Iceland.

Only handguns, Doug. Not long guns.

Of course things need to be permanently debated and argued in the United States of Amnesia. When the past is forgotten from one generation to another and the sense of historicity doesn't exist, everything seems new. It's like every fish in "Finding Nemo" behaves like Dori and is very full and confident in itself. That is how USA appears to be. I don't take that as vigor, to exhaust yourself in a permanent Groundhog Day.

"... a breath of fresh air after the soggy centralist consensus that usually prevails in Britain and much of Western Europe"?

Thankfully the soggy centralist consensus prevailing in Britain is that wide availability of guns has no place in the modern society and the right to bear arms is not something that will be raised save perhaps in the meetings of minority paranoid white supremists.

That's good to hear, Handworn. They have some very exotic beautiful birds over there and I've been kinda hoping to eat one.

This blog is another deplorable bit of sanctimonious hypocrisy coming from the Economist, considering this publication was also one of the first to describe Jared Loughner as 'right-wing' without presenting any evidence to support such a claim (see Newsbook blog). Apparently, the Economist has joined other media organizations such as MSNBC in adopting the new leftist standard for journalism; i.e that no factual evidence is required before reporting, so long as the conclusions are ideologically correct or serve a political purpose. There is at least as much, if not more, evidence to support placing Loughner as a leftist as I and others have posted previously, and convincing evidence that he has been mentally ill for quite some time. He has apparently also made death threats in the past that may have been ignored by the local sherriff's office. Ignoring such evidence and rushing to judgement as many on the left and also at the Economist did, the backpedaling here and affirmation that the shooter was not politically motivated and that even vitriolic political speech should be protected sound like hollow gestures. Probably because they are...

I quote Gary Jackson since he is a better writer:
"Using the very same standard the left wing and their corrupt media partners have used to smear and slander Sarah Palin, all evidence points to Barack Obama as the One who inspired radical Marxist Jared Lee Loughner to commit mass murder. Loughner has been fixated on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, one of the many victims, since at least 2007, long before the Tea Party was formed, or anyone knew who the hell Sarah Palin was. Of course, seeing as how Loughner is against everything Sarah Palin and the Tea Party stand for, it’s highly unlikely he would have sought them out for inspiration anyway.
No, it’s more likely Jared Lee Loughner would be inspired by a fellow traveler, and a fellow Marxist, like Barack Obama.

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit has compiled a short list of Obama’s “greatest hits” his strongest and most violent rhetoric:
Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His Mercenary SEIU Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

In 2009, at the height of the heated town hall debates where America stood up and told the Obama regime they did NOT want government run health care, Obama gathered up his union thugs from the SEIU, and told them to “hit back twice as hard“!
The direct result of Obama’s violent rhetoric was the severe beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black man, at a St. Louis town hall meeting. Gladney was beaten by a large group of the purple shirted union thugs, and called a N-word numerous times. Gladney was beaten so severely that he was confined to a wheel chair while he recuperated.
An NAACP leader spoke out saying Kenneth Gladney DESERVED the beating that almost killed him because he wasn’t “black enough” and was acting like an “Uncle Tom.” You see, in the black community, and the democrat party as a whole, any deviation from the party line is simply not tolerated. Gladney was at the town hall event,not as a participant. Instead, he was outside, having set up a small booth, selling American flags, Gadsden flags, and other patriotic goodies. That is why this American businessman was attacked for being an “Uncle Tom” and “not black enough.” I never knew being black meant you couldn’t also love your country."

Good job, Gary!

I already mentioned this in the DiA blog, but since everyone is blogging about the same thing, here it goes again:

Toddlers throw temper tantrums because they lack the ability to express their frustrations any other way. When people talk about curtailing hateful and divisive speech, all they are doing is preventing hateful and divisive people from expressing their frustrations in the most peaceful way possible. This leaves only non-peaceful means of expression left.

I don't want LESS hateful, noxious speech -- I want MORE hateful, noxious speech. If the hateful, noxious people of the world are given a legitimate outlet to vent their frustrations, then they will feel less of a need to express themselves using other means.

Muzzling such people does not create a better society, it simply makes discourse politically correct, bland, and meaningless, while at the same time creating a lot of ticking time bombs just waiting for a spark to set them off.

I see with crazywhitetrash the "up is down" right-wing crowd is back.

Suddenly the gun-toting, angry, tea partiers are redefined as Peaceniks, and the conciliatory, very calm President is to be revealed as a foaming-at-the-mouth fighter.

Of course, until something like Iran is brought up, and stuff will be repainted in the opposite hues.

More than the politics, it is, again, the willful denial of any underlying reality which disturbs me over the past 10 years for the "Republicans" (in quotes...I hardly know what to think that party stands for).

The "surveyors mark" spin from the Palin camp is just breathtaking/typical. Why not stick with the more nuanced and likely true argument: mentally imbalanced people do crazy things?

Why the stuff like crazywhitetrash writes?

And, on another topic, why don't the Republicans stick with a likely winning goal like reducing the Federal Deficit? Why do they then exclude such things as the military, Medicare (reverse previous cuts!, they shout), and vow not to raise taxes--turning it into a nutty, impractical, non-reality type position?

I agree with the blog premise that a good romp through divergent ideas is exciting. But when you have one side arguing something they don't really believe, in their heart, to be true (I am giving them credit here), one has no one really, no ideology really, to compromise with. It is a side that is just anti-the-other-side.

Lex

Well said, my good sir!
Let all the smug atheist, pro-abortion, truther, pothead, new-wave psychological theory, nihilistic, law scoffing, 'Communist Manifesto' reading, American flag burning leftists like Jared Loughner who are frustrated with the ignorant unwashed masses come forward! Then let them be locked up for a long, long, time.