Giffords' Shooting Palin's Fault? Think Again
This morning we pray for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family, and the other victims of the heinous violence in Arizona.
It should not be, but the media, under the guise of “a full exposition” of the evil in Arizona, is back to subtly and not so subtly pinning the blame for the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman and the related shootings on the tea party movement, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, me, you, and everyone right of center.
Let’s be crystal clear: this is the supposedly objective news media doing this, not the openly, partisan left, though it is fueling the media witch hunt. And from what we now know, it is not just media malpractice, but a lie.
Ironically, by perpetuating the lie — by even treating it as a legitimate topic of consideration to revisit the accusations of violence and hate the media tried to run with prior to the November election — that the right and the tea party incited this evil act, the left and media may very well incite violence against the right.
Today, the Sunday Shows will all be from Arizona. There will, I have no doubt, be many of them wanting to know if “rhetoric” and “tea parties” and “opposition to Barack Obama” did this.
They will also bring up, as they did yesterday, Sarah Palin putting Gabrielle Giffords on her target list for defeat with a rifle scope symbol over her district.
Here is what will either not be brought up, or if brought up, will only be mentioned in passing.
Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, the largest left-wing community online, put Gabrielle Giffords on a target list with a bullseye. Just as Sarah Palin removed her post, Markos has removed his.
Another Daily Kos writer, just the other day, penned a post saying Congresswoman Giffords was dead to him.
But then there is the real culprit — the shooter himself.
A friend of the shooter’s described the shooter as decidedly “left-wing” as recently as 2007.
On YouTube, he flagged as a favorite video one of a person dressed as a terrorist burning the American flag. Only a lunatic or a leftist would do that.
His favorite work was not a Glenn Beck book, but a staple of every left-wing bookshelf, theCommunist Manifesto.
In the Communist Manifesto, there are numerous, frequent calls for violence against the bourgeoisies.
Left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall’s most recent book calls for a violent response from the left against the right.
Barack Obama himself told left-wing activists, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
The point of all of this is not to blame Ted Rall, Mr. Obama, Media Matters, MSNBC, any other particular person or group on the left, or the left in general. It is also not to say in any way, shape, or form that the guy is of the left. If, however, we take the evidence as presented and not as the media and left would have it presented, the shooter very clearly is not of the right.
More precisely, the shooter is neither left-wing nor right-wing. He is crazy and evil — a word not used enough. The guy is very clearly not of the tea party movement, not a Dittohead, not led by Sarah Palin, me, or anyone else on the right.
But the media, at least as of this morning and its accumulated coverage so far on this matter, could not care less. The media is intent on yet again exploring right-wing rhetoric and tea party hate. Left-wingers yesterday were falling all over themselves to blame everyone on the right for the horrific shooting.
The media today, as it begins more expansive reporting, will not let the facts get in the way of making the right, yet again, responsible for violence it neither incited nor enabled. In the process, the media’s credibility will continue to shrink.
By the way, as an exit thought, the tea party movement won in November. Winners don’t go on shooting sprees.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
with you opinion here.
Funny that the BBC who being not of this country, is somewhat capable of an outside view. I often find it's, just the facts, as a rule on BBC. Not the long analytical twisting of the news to suit that of the commentator, which is what MSNBC, FOX and the others do as a rule. To talk about an event that took 3 minutes for 20 min, should show that many of our news sources are entertainers not legitimate reporters. I tend to READ the news, so as to form my own opinion which I will admit is left of center.
How many different versions of the Truth are out here.
I'm sick of the biased reporting (entertainment), and opinionated pundits on TV , and Radio. This includes The eD show and rUSH Limbaugh to mention just two, they all have enough money to retire.
Same goes for Long Term Career Politicians who should not exist period. If they haven't done anything in single term, what makes you think that will change. They exist on both sides of the isle.
I catch myself doing this more often than I would like. I'll be thinking of an event from ten plus years ago and what will come to mind is the part that was most prominent in the news at the time of the event. I now make it a habit to go back in time, but if we don't bother revisit the event to double check our memories, we place the misinformation into the middle of our decision making process.
On many of the minor events, or certain aspects of the major events, the corrections come much later and are low key enough to missed by many. Refute it now, and do so loudly.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
If you want the real information without bias (at least as without bias as human beings can be) listen to NPR. Right wingers like to talk about Nazi Public Radio and how extreme left it is but that's 100% BS. They're about as center of the road as you can get. I haven't seen anything from any of the other media channels on this story but it doesn't surprise me that they're jumping on the speculation bandwagon as to why this guy shot Giffords and the others. NPR has been very specific that nobody knows the shooters motivations yet and they will not speculate on that until they know for sure. If you want honest reporting of reality you should listen to NPR.
That said, whether the guy was a right wing nut or a left wing nut we should all be able to agree that it's totally unacceptable for politicians, or really anybody, to use gun imagery in their political discourse, unless, of course, you're actually discussing gun control issues. Using gun targets or bullseyes when referring to someone, calling for a "second amendment remedy", or in any other way implying that violence is a reasonable response to our relatively minor political differences is totally unreasonable and shouldn't be used. Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting the government ban free speech of any kind I'm just saying we shouldn't tolerate this kind of speech as a society.
Let's wait and see what this guys motivations actually are as more actual information comes out. Whatever his motivations are and whoever his inspiration is let's realize that our political differences in this country are relatively mild. On the grand political scale the differences between our left wing and our right wing are barely noticeable and clearly don't warrant murder.
However, they deserve credit for retracting and apologizing for initially reporting that Giffords was fatally wounded in the attack. Yes, they had two law enforcement sources making that claim, but they still apologized with dignity.
However, they were completely on the "Blame Palin and the Tea Party" bandwagon. It is interesting to note that they cooled the Palin hate rhetoric faster than others have, and that is good.
But claiming that NPR was unbiased is unreasonable when their stories do not bear out that assessment.
As for your violent imagery in politics argument, Slate's Jack Schafer has some really sound arguments against your position.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280616 /
It is worth a look.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I listen to quite a bit of it. In fact I've been listening to them almost constantly for the last few days, as they're the only reliable source of info in situations like this, and I have not heard any NPR employee speculate on the shooters motives. They've had one or two guests on that have mentioned it and each time they've clarified that NPR will not speculate on his motives without more evidence.
That Slate article you posted here is garbage. The writer has completely missed the point.
Nobody's suggesting that politicians are issuing "Manchurian Candidate" style orders to the crazies or even that they're hoping their rhetoric will lead to murder. Also, virtually nobody (with the unfortunate exception of Rep Brady) is suggesting that we should make it illegal to use heated rhetoric. We're just saying that people should use some self restraint. That it's unnecessary, counterproductive and dangerous to tell people that certain politicians are trying to kill their grandma (death panels) then put crosshairs over them while suggesting "second amendment remedies". That is a very clear call to violence.
Also, I love how you gun nuts love to quote cops when they support your "everyone should have a gun and shoot first ask questions later" stance but as soon as one says tone it down people this is getting dangerous you say he should just sit down and shut up. After all, what do cops know about guns and violence? Plus, aren't conservatives the ones who are always going on about how violent video games lead to violence? How can violent video games do that yet regular calls for second amendment remedies (sharon Angle and others), assassinating the president (fox news commentator Liz Trotta), or decapitating journalists you disagree with (Bill O'reilly) can just be harmless fun
It's dangerous and irresponsible. Conservatives regularly call for the heads of Muslim leaders when a Muslim extremist kills someone or tries to. If Muslim leaders are guilty for inciting violence why isn't everyone held to the same standard when some lunatic finally listens to their suggestions and unloads into a crowd?
I'm not a fan of radio. I like to read, though. Reading NPR informs me that they are on the same bandwagon as the rest of the progressives who are busy dancing in the blood of the fallen in order to paint the Tea Party or Palin or Beck or Rush etc. as culpable of inciting violence.
In order to believe as you believe, you have to actively excuse those on the left who do the exact damn same thing. The. Same. Thing.
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 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.”
You think that you can politicize this by relying on a Democratic sheriff who runs for office as a DEMOCRAT?! I guess if you are going to blindly jump on the wagon and like Sheriff Dupnik, no amount of showing you the truth will sway your opinion.
BTW, Sheriff Dupnik was called on the carpet for politicizing this tragedy. He is now on record saying that he has no proof for his assertion. He holds his opinion without any facts to support it. This is because there are no facts which support the conclusion that any amount of political rhetoric led to Laughner's violence.
To him, and you, I say: Is it really too politically damaging to just stick with the facts? Does your ilk have the wherewithal to admit that you are ghoulishly trying to use these dead bodies to prop up your fact-free political attack againsts Palin et al?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Your assertions about NPR's reporting hold no weight as you obviously were unable to even read my original comment, much less an article on NPR.org. I'm against ALL people who call for violence in support of their political cause. I clearly stated that I don't care if this guy is a right wing nut or a left wing nut or who helped push him over the edge. We all need to tone it down. Left and Right the rhetoric has gotten too heated and too violent. Sadly what should have been a wake up call just seems to be leading to more people calling for more violence. This is not helpful. I don't even see anywhere in that article where it says what that Sheriff's political leanings are and I couldn't care less. Whether he's got an R or a D next to his name in the next election (assuming they elect sheriff's in Tucson) he's right. People need to tone it down and stop inciting violence.
I still listen to it. In fact, I bet my number of years is bigger than yours. I listen to a bunch of NPR and I listen to other programs on the radio too.
NPR is on the left. period. That's why I listen to it. Their commentators admit to liberalism. They fire people who aren't left enough, like they did Juan Williams, and he's really liberal.
Your facts are wrong, friend. You don't notice the difference, because you aren't dedicated enough to listen to both sides.
I like hearing both sides. I have definitely decided that conservatism is the grown up way to think, but when I want to hear what kids think nowadays, I listen to NPR.
Joseph, I do listen to both sides. I listen to Fox for as long as I can put up with their constant yelling and berating of interviewees that don't follow their party line. I follow some MSNBC and some CNN. I follow several blogs and even Drudge. I always double check my sources and try to find primary source materials and that's why I mostly listen to NPR. Because, unlike the others, NPR comes out consistently with accurate information and minimal spin. Possibly more importantly, when NPR has reported incorrectly (Giffords death for example), or if there's a potential conflict of interest (reporting on a company that donates) they reveal that to their listeners. You never hear corrections or reports of conflict of interest from any of the others. You certainly never hear Glen Beck admit that his anti-government rants and pushing of gold benefit his gold investments.
Many years ago people told me that when I graduated college and got a job and started paying taxes , then I'd become a conservative. Years later they told me that when I bought a house I'd become a conservative. Then they told me that when I had a family of my own I'd become a conservative.
I'm happy to say that they've been wrong on all counts. I hope that as I grow older I don't give up my faith in humanity and adopt the every man for himself, shoot to kill, guns are the answer to every question, blame "them" because it's certainly not "our" fault, my invisible man in the sky is stronger than your invisible man in the sky conservative attitude. If that means I'm on board with what the kids are thinking these days then count me in. I'm going sledding.
When you grow up, you'll be a conservative. Some very old people never grow up.