Tucson Shooting: The Coming Blame Game

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The fact that she was born on Sept. 11, 2001 is a somewhat somber and/or sad coincidence. Of course it's irrelevant to the facts of what happened, and of course every story mentions it because it tugs at the heartstrings. I don't think it's strange that everybody keeps mentioning it. In the last 50 or so years, probably at least since JFK's assassination and maybe all the way back to Pearl Harbor, September 11, 2001 is literally the ONLY date that is extraordinarily meaningful to everybody in the country. If she was born on that date in 2002 or 2003 I might roll my eyes at the mention of it, but she was born on the exact day. Yes, so were thousands of other kids. It doesn't make her special, but it also shouldn't be the least bit surprising that people take note of it.And actually, I don't even think it is entirely inconsequential to helping the public understand the story. The congresswoman and the judge are getting 90% of the victims' coverage, but clearly the biggest tragedy of all is that this 9-year-old girl was murdered. What can you say about her in one line that will make everybody go, 'Aww man, what a tragedy?' That she was born on September 11, 2001. The reader might even then think about her birth, what her parents must have been feeling that day, the juxtaposition of mass murder vs. birth, death vs. life, etc. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the press to tell us about that fact, and it helps personalize the story for people, even if those people don't know anything else about her.

Actually, Exactly my point.I happen to feel that it is bad lazy journalism. What you describe is pretty much the definition of Demagoguery - as opposed to fact-based objective journalism/dialogue/debate - and that is one of my personal Windmills. I hate when anyone, but particularly the Media, uses emotion inducing language to purely as a short cut to invoke an emotional rather than rational response. The 9/11 reference is at best a short-cut to real journalism and communication, and at worst a possible attempt to link the emotions of 9/11 to this story. It is already a real and tragic story without the ubiquitous 9/11 references. Do you not see any irony (Alanis Definition) in the discussion of "Inflammatory Political Rhetoric" as it relates to this incident and then using an emotional short cut of "9/11"?

[timwakefield 68]

Actually, Exactly my point.I happen to feel that it is bad lazy journalism. What you describe is pretty much the definition of Demagoguery - as opposed to fact-based objective journalism/dialogue/debate - and that is one of my personal Windmills. I hate when anyone, but particularly the Media, uses inflammatory, emotion inducing language to purely as a short cut to invoke an emotional rather than rational response. The 9/11 reference is at best a short-cut to real journalism and communication, and at worst a possible attempt to link the emotions of 9/11 to this story. It is already a real and tragic story without the ubiquitous 9/11 references.

I totally hate when politicians, reporters, etc try and use 9/11 to drum up sympathy or simply make people agree with them because....'9/11 happened!' But I don't see that here. I haven't seen it as the centerpiece of any story, but simply as a one-line fact used when describing the girl. I think it personalizes her and her family. I haven't seen the fact of her birthday overused or abused by the press, but I also don't watch tv news so maybe they're harping on about it and being shamefully sympathetic. ("Shamefully sympathetic" is not meant sarcastically - I really do hate when news reports become obsessed with pointless emotional details, but I haven't seen that here.)

[Don Giovanni 0]

Actually, Exactly my point.I happen to feel that it is bad lazy journalism. What you describe is pretty much the definition of Demagoguery - as opposed to fact-based objective journalism/dialogue/debate - and that is one of my personal Windmills. I hate when anyone, but particularly the Media, uses inflammatory, emotion inducing language to purely as a short cut to invoke an emotional rather than rational response. The 9/11 reference is at best a short-cut to real journalism and communication, and at worst a possible attempt to link the emotions of 9/11 to this story. It is already a real and tragic story without the ubiquitous 9/11 references.

what? exactly your point? you don't have a point. what the hell are you talking about? suppose people just think its a bit interesting that this girl was born on 9/11/01. what does this have to do with objective journalism, dialog, or debate? how does mentioning that little fact prevent a rational response? why are you reading into this so much?

[AmScray 355]

And the examples Scram pointed to regarding how we dealt with it before is one the biggest reasons it won't change.

Politically speaking, you're right. Memories of the State Hospital horrors of the 70's and 80's aren't quite stale enough. There would be opposition and past failings in public health would be cited as to why. Practically speaking, we could do it again without repeating old mistakes.Prisons, too, used to be positively inhuman places but unlike mental institutions, we didn't have the option to just close them down in response to instances of abuse... So, we changed. To be sure, bad things still go on in prisons today, but they're nothing like they were prior to the 1980's. We straightened them up, for the most part (obviously, isolated instances will occur) and we could do the same with reopened state asylums for mental defectives. Lets shift some of that military spending to public health. I'm OK with that.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

It never surprises me that you are clueless about what is being said.Wait till someone explains it to you...then you can realize how dumb you look.

I'm literally starting to feel embarrassed for BG as I read his posts.It's like being in a public place and seeing someone stand up and start singing to their friends. Their friends blush and look around, clearly uncomfortable. And the singer is oblivious. Eyes closed, warbling away off key. Nasal. All the while thinking they're enchanting the crowd. Dreaming of how well they'll do during the upcoming American Idol audition. Just... embarrassing.

[Balloon guy 158]

Politically speaking, you're right. Memories of the State Hospital horrors of the 70's and 80's aren't quite stale enough. There would be opposition and past failings in public health would be cited as to why. Practically speaking, we could do it again without repeating old mistakes.Prisons, too, used to be positively inhuman places but unlike mental institutions, we didn't have the option to just close them down in response to instances of abuse... So, we changed. To be sure, bad things still go on in prisons today, but they're nothing like they were prior to the 1980's. We straightened them up, for the most part (obviously, isolated instances will occur) and we could do the same with reopened state asylums for mental defectives. Lets shift some of that military spending to public health. I'm OK with that.

Remember when Reagan got blamed for forcing all those people out on the streets?Until we decide as a nation that we are willing to spend the busloads of money it will take to get people help, who often times don't want help, then we are basically saying that we would rather have extra money for women to have 5 children and no husband and have a few senseless shootings then make the tough decision that sometimes people's 'rights' need to come second to society's safety.How we make the distinction of who needs to be locked up I'm not sure, and I wouldn't trust anyone who has run for public office to write up the conditions.But I think you know that the reality of the public's 'compassion' and empathy has removed their ability to understand that the bad people in this world are not even remotely going to be less bad by being coddled, ignored, or cared about.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Fact is we have decided that esoteric notions like freedom mean you can't do anything to someone who 'looks like they are about to kill a bunch of people' until they actually try to kill a bunch of people.

i've decided you must be a super-troll, sent back through time to annoy the shit out of everyone with ridiculously stupid comments on every subject.

And I think he's just a person who doesn't really know what esoteric means

[Balloon guy 158]

And I think he's just a person who doesn't really know what esoteric means

It means what I need it to mean at that moment.....Edit:No..it means what I thought it meant.Thanks for making me check college boy.I was correct irregardless of your implications

[timwakefield 68]

Remember when Reagan got blamed for forcing all those people out on the streets?

Yes? Rather than overhauling the system, or offering some form reasonable care, or at least some alternative other than "homeless crazy" and "horrible One-Flew-Over-The-Cuckoo's-Nest institution?" Yes, I remember when he got blamed for that.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes? Rather than overhauling the system, or offering some form reasonable care, or at least some alternative other than "homeless crazy" and "horrible One-Flew-Over-The-Cuckoo's-Nest institution?" Yes, I remember when he got blamed for that.

Good times

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Thanks for making me check college boy.

200 grand well worth it.

[Balloon guy 158]

200 grand well worth it.

No..really?I mean you obviously have a specialized field etc. but $200K?Does the job pay that well?

[Balloon guy 158]

So the first 'new law' I've heard come from this is one proposed by some congressman that no body may be within 1,000 feet of basically any national or state politician.My first thought is that is really going to stop these guys. "Okay, I am going to kill a congressman...by shooting them with my gun, because my dog told me too. So they will be ..wait a minute...I'm NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY MY GUN WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THEM....guess I can't shoot them unless I can shoot a moving target from 1,000 feet. I was soooo close, I hope the dog understands how there is just no way to kill this person if I can't carry a gun closer than 1,000 feet."

[AmScray 355]

Remember when Reagan got blamed for forcing all those people out on the streets?Until we decide as a nation that we are willing to spend the busloads of money it will take to get people help, who often times don't want help, then we are basically saying that we would rather have extra money for women to have 5 children and no husband and have a few senseless shootings then make the tough decision that sometimes people's 'rights' need to come second to society's safety.How we make the distinction of who needs to be locked up I'm not sure, and I wouldn't trust anyone who has run for public office to write up the conditions.But I think you know that the reality of the public's 'compassion' and empathy has removed their ability to understand that the bad people in this world are not even remotely going to be less bad by being coddled, ignored, or cared about.

Well, blaming the president for everything under the sun is nothing new, but our shuttering the mental health services in the 80's amounted to saying uncle in the face of a problem we just cannot afford to give up on. Instead of appointing a "Mental Health Czar" to clean up the mental health services, he declared war on drugs. We started aggressively spraying at the smoke while ignoring the burning fire. Whether or not mental defectives "want" help isn't relevant. They're mental defectives. Unfortunately, what they "want" isn't always available to them, by virtue of their own incapacitates. It's sad, but it's a reality. If a blind man wants to drive a car, we must step in to say no, just as if a stark-raving lunatic wants to wander about in society, risking everyone around him. Will this cost money? Of course. I would argue we can afford it, if we rethink how we spend money and cull needless spending elsewhere to fund things that are more needed, like this. The other option is to continue on as we are today, ignore the problem, gnash our teeth whenever something like this happens, then hope the furor fades fast enough so nothing politically actionable comes from it. When did we become so stupid that we started to weigh and give undue consideration to the opinions of the insane, under some absurd pretext of "rights"? If you want to blame the left for anything, blame them for this. Their ridiculous 'ideals' on life are clearly the culprit for this gaining any traction, however, blame Republicans for not caring about the people effected by mental illness, thus allowing the liberal failboat to set sail without any meaningful opposition.The obvious answer to this problem is that the insane be rounded up and put to work on a farm, producing organic vegetables for homeless vegetarian Catholic lesbians. This would appeal to both left and right alike.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, blaming the president for everything under the sun is nothing new, but our shuttering the mental health services in the 80's amounted to saying uncle in the face of a problem we just cannot afford to give up on. Instead of appointing a "Mental Health Czar" to clean up the mental health services, he declared war on drugs. We started aggressively spraying at the smoke while ignoring the burning fire. Whether or not mental defectives "want" help isn't relevant. They're mental defectives. Unfortunately, what they "want" isn't always available to them, by virtue of their own incapacitates. It's sad, but it's a reality. If a blind man wants to drive a car, we must step in to say no, just as if a stark-raving lunatic wants to wander about in society, risking everyone around him. Will this cost money? Of course. I would argue we can afford it, if we rethink how we spend money and cull needless spending elsewhere to fund things that are more needed, like this. The other option is to continue on as we are today, ignore the problem, gnash our teeth whenever something like this happens, then hope the furor fades fast enough so nothing politically actionable comes from it. When did we become so stupid that we started to weigh and give undue consideration to the opinions of the insane, under some absurd pretext of "rights"? If you want to blame the left for anything, blame them for this. Their ridiculous 'ideals' on life are clearly the culprit for this gaining any traction, however, blame Republicans for not caring about the people effected by mental illness, thus allowing the liberal failboat to set sail without any meaningful opposition.

Indeed, if you want to be royally screwed in a democracy, belong to a group that doesn't vote one way or the other.

[AmScray 355]

Indeed, if you want to be royally screwed in a democracy, belong to a group that doesn't vote one way or the other.

How are the words you just typed relevant to the words I typed?

[Balloon guy 158]

How are the words you just typed relevant to the words I typed?

Crazy people are screwed by democrats who want to coddle them without admitting they need controlled, and republicans who don't want to pay for them, because they are too small a number to garner any voting capital to justify either of the self serving politicians to raise a hand to work on the problem.

[AmScray 355]

Crazy people are screwed by democrats who want to coddle them without admitting they need controlled, and republicans who don't want to pay for them, because they are too small a number to garner any voting capital to justify either of the self serving politicians to raise a hand to work on the problem.

I've am adopting a minimalist posting aesthetic for 24 hours. Should I find myself inspired to post, I won't reply with anything more than devices of punctuation to convey my thoughts.

[AmScray 355]

Crazy people are screwed by democrats who want to coddle them without admitting they need controlled, and republicans who don't want to pay for them, because they are too small a number to garner any voting capital to justify either of the self serving politicians to raise a hand to work on the problem.

... (?)

[hblask 1]

It will not change because we have become a nation where the idea of freedom, personal liberty etc is more important than the safety of the masses.

Well, yeah, that's because the alternative has been tried, and, well, a couple dozen every couple years is not as bad as the systematic elimination of hundreds of thousands or millions.Yeah, it's not a good trade.

[ShakeZuma 585]

2 days until this gets blamed on rap music or video games

don't be silly

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, yeah, that's because the alternative has been tried, and, well, a couple dozen every couple years is not as bad as the systematic elimination of hundreds of thousands or millions.Yeah, it's not a good trade.

If we are going to accept the Elois have to lose their lives every now and then to the Morlocks, then do we have to have 2 weeks of talking heads telling us why the problem demands a change to our laws?Of course writing off the sick that could be helped in order to appease a social group of do-gooder idiots seems to be the worst kind of 'social advancements'

[Balloon guy 158]

... (?)

If you place the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few, then demand the many should be exempt from the results of that decision, then you are a partisan hack?

[timwakefield 68]

don't be silly

Good God that article is abysmal.

And sure enough, his musical tastes would appear to give the chattering classes who chatter about such things plenty to chatter about.

In summation, annoying people are going to blame this on music and here's the argument they're gonna make. I, the author, am not one of those annoying, hypothetical people, I am simply stating what they probably think! I write good article pay me now lol, chatter chatter.I also like how he attaches the video to the song he's discussing, a video which contains zero guns or explicit violence of any kind.

[Don Giovanni 0]

by the way, enough people aren't complaining about this idiot sheriff who immediately started blaming right wing hate for this incident when really it seems like it was his incompetence. his police force did nothing about the future shooter despite several opportunities and they weren't the least bit worried about an insane guy despite the fact that everyone else was. and all this in an environment that should be ultra sensitive towards school shooting threats. this sheriff is a failure and the fact that he started making it into a political issue before even knowing what the **** happened is pathetic. what a loser. should have just shut his ****ing mouth or apologized for being shit at his job. why isn't he being fired right now?