# Arizona Congresswoman shot



## Bass ackwards (8 Jan 2011)

I just caught a bit of this on the radio.

From QMI agency:

A U.S. congresswoman was shot in the head at a Arizona grocery store during a public event Saturday morning, reports say.

Gabrielle Giffords and at least 10 other people, including staff members of hers, were hurt after a shooting spree outside a Tucson Safeway after 10 a.m., according to National Public Radio.

Reportedly, Giffords was shot point blank in the head while hosting a meet-and-greet event at the grocery store.

A man reportedly fired randomly and fled, but the alleged shooter was subdued by a bystander and is in custody, according to local media.

Giffords, a Democrat elected for a third-term last November, was taken to hospital. Her condition is not yet known.

Link here:  http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/01/08/16812071.html


The latest I got was that 5 were dead including Ms. Giffords and one child -though there were some possible indications that Ms. Giffords may still be alive. 
Condolences to the families of the dead and wounded.


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Jan 2011)

I've heard conflicting reports about her status, as well as if the shooter is in custody.


My condolences.


----------



## brihard (8 Jan 2011)

Every report I've read indicated the shooter was tackled and is in custody. Young male, late teens or early twenties. I've read him described as white.

Reports still conflicting over whether Mrs. Giffords is alive. Sources at the hospital have indicated that's she's in critical condition and is in surgery. Numerous witnesses report she was shot in the head. Conflicting reports over additiona wounded- numbers varying between 6 and 12, with some reports of up to 6 dead. 

Retuers quotes Pres. Obama stating she's 'gravely wounded', and that 'some have passed away'.

Info obviously still developing, but if Obama's referring to her as wounded, safe bet he's being fed reliable info on this through a pretty direct chain.

I'm pulling this off the last 15 minutes' worth of Google News reports, with a preference for newer reports.


----------



## JMesh (8 Jan 2011)

Update from the head of trauma at the hospital: They have completed surgery on her, and he is optimistic on her recovery. They received 10 patients. Of those, 1, a child about 9 years old, has died. 5 are in critical condition. Also, MSNBC reports that the chief judge of Arizona and an aide of the Congresswoman were killed.

Edit: forgot to note that they also said the Congresswoman was responsive prior to surgery. She is now under anaesthesia.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (8 Jan 2011)

Apparently the shooter was a 20 something caucasian male who was pissed off at the government for using mind control and taking away people's guns.

Also, CNN is reporting that the congresswoman is out of surgery in critical condition with a single gun shot wound to the head.


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Jan 2011)

I can't confirm it, but apparently he's a veteran, as was in Afghanistan. Again that's unconfirmed.


----------



## Bass ackwards (8 Jan 2011)

The shooter is apparently a 22 year old white male named Jared Loughner. 
Still not sure of the motive, although that is certainly not stopping the peanut galleries on both the CBC and FOX (to name but two) from using this tragedy to stoke their various fires.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (8 Jan 2011)

Jared's youtube page, supposedly.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

Your link is not working, at least for me, Michael.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jan 2011)

Some more updates:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-suspect08brk-ON.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-giffords-brk.html

Bass ackwards - I watched some Fox coverage today. All of their commentary was focused on the tragedy, not partisan nattering. On the other hand reader comments attached to articles on every major news website I have visited had idiots posting BS.

Newf - I haven't seen anything indicating he was a Veteran.


----------



## gun runner (8 Jan 2011)

Does Arizona have the death sentence?


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (8 Jan 2011)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Does Arizona have the death sentence?


Yes


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

Had a quick look and current method is lethal injection but those sentenced before Nov.1992 can choose lethal gas  >


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2011)

This individual has a credible claim on the insanity defense, I think. Pretty classic evidence of paranoid schizophrenia.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This individual has a credible claim on the insanity defense, I think. Pretty classic evidence of paranoid schizophrenia.



Which will play right into the Left's hypothosis that it is not the individual at fault, but the inanimate object (firearm).


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> Jared's youtube page, supposedly.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
> 
> Your link is not working, at least for me, Michael.



Besides mind-control babble he's got streaming ... me thinks he was also attempting a 'suicide by cop' ... note that his bio comments are all in the *past tense*:



> Profile
> Name:Jared Lee Loughner
> Channel Views:271
> Joined:October 25, 2010
> ...



(Bold is my edit to above from his page) ...

And, quite the closer that he's got on his stream:



> In conclusion, my ambition is for informing literate dreamers about a new currency; in a few days, you know I'm conscience dreaming! Thank you!



A little bit of pre-meditation perhaps?


----------



## kstart (9 Jan 2011)

It sounds like the shooter had some serious mental health issues:


> On the evening Pima Community College suspended Loughner, two Pima officers delivered the letter of suspension to Loughner at his and his parent's home, where they spoke with him and family, the statement reported.
> 
> Loughner and his parents met with Northwest Campus administrators Oct. 4 last year. During the meeting, Loughner indicated he would withdraw from the college. A follow-up letter was sent to him Oct. 7, telling him that he must obtain a mental health clearance from a professional saying that his presence at Pima college would not present a danger to himself or others.
> 
> Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-suspect08brk-ON.html#ixzz1AVUZD5Xi



The ramblings from his youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

It looks like psychosis, schizophrenia.  The incident at the college could have been a first-episode psychosis, his age is ripe for it, previous loner.  I wonder if he did recieve a mental health assessment, whether he complied with taking his medications (sometimes it's a really tough battle to get a person with paranoid schizophrenia to comply with medication  usage.  They believe so strongly in their delusions and where their disorganized thinking takes them; they don't trust the 'state'.

The ramblings, math formulas and although he expresses some loosely associated convuluted lefty stuff, he's paranoid to be forthcoming about his points, feels he has to communicate in 'code'.  I guess he didn't read any Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein, Maud Barlow. . .because they've been direct and the 'state' hasn't come after them.  I've had experience dealing with paranoid schizophrenics, 'literate ones' and seen the twisting of what they read, to justify delusions and actions.  I can also see, he's trying to compensate by presenting "logic".  It looks to me that he was not compliant in either seeking medical mental health assessment, or to take his medications. 

Those are my impressions.  This is a truly a very terrible tragedy.  The tragedy is also that this wasn't caught in time, before lives were lost, injured, and the terrible suffering as a result.  Hoping for full recovery of those injuried and deep condolences to the families, friends, colleagues who have lost their loved ones due to this terrible tragic event.


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

From The New York Times:

Arizona Suspect’s Online Trail Offers Hints of Alienation

A suspected gunman, in a few public hints, offered a sense of his alienation from society, confusion, anger as well as foreboding that his life could soon come to an end.

http://nyti.ms/efvlnd

and from further in the article..."*Army officials said Saturday that he had tried to enlist but had been rejected for military service. Privacy rules prevented them from disclosing the reason."*


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This individual has a credible claim on the insanity defense, I think. Pretty classic evidence of paranoid schizophrenia.



If I were a prosecutor in a DP state ... and I saw his youtube page with the past-tense usage ... I'd be offering it up as proof of premeditation & to counteract any kooookooooooo angle from the defence.


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

Plus, if there is indeed a second suspect, then it's "Conspiracy to..."  Correct?

From The New York Times:

2nd Suspect Sought in Arizona Shooting

A suspect was in custody after Representative Gabrielle Giffords was wounded and John M. Roll, a federal judge, was killed, near Tuscon.

http://nyti.ms/fGst8y


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (9 Jan 2011)

A recent (before all this happened) post from his myspace page.

"Dear friends ... please don't be mad at me. The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven't talked to one person who is literate".




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If I were a prosecutor in a DP state ... and I saw his youtube page with the past-tense usage ... I'd be offering it up as proof of premeditation & to counteract any kooookooooooo angle from the defence.


He has obviously been "troubled" for some time, just because he planned it doesn't mean he is sane.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> From The New York Times:
> 
> Arizona Suspect’s Online Trail Offers Hints of Alienation
> 
> ...



At least he can't use the profession of arms as an excuse. 

It will be interesting how the current administration and organisation deals with this, given that a couple (few) of their own are now involved. The left normally tries to demonise the object (gun) and alleviate the assailant. However, that almost is always the case with low profile, nobody knows them victims. That's not the case here.

I expect a concerted effort against Sarah Palin (hunter and gun owner), the Second Amendment and the Republican\ Tea Party simply because some of the people harmed were high profile Democrats.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> A recent (before all this happened) post from his myspace page.
> 
> "Dear friends ... please don't be mad at me. The literacy rate is below 5%. I haven't talked to one person who is literate".
> 
> He has obviously been "troubled" for some time, just because he planned it doesn't mean he is sane.



I'd agree with your last statement, but whether or not he is criminally insane is another matter --- I'm quite sure the courts will decide.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If I were a prosecutor in a DP state ... and I saw his youtube page with the past-tense usage ... I'd be offering it up as proof of premeditation & to counteract any kooookooooooo angle from the defence.



You can be capable of planning actions, and still be nuttier than squirrel shit.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You can be capable of planning actions, and still be nuttier than squirrel shit.



You can still be a nut, and be found responsible for your actions too --- especially if found to be fully capable of pre-meditating those actions.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You can still be a nut, and be found responsible for your actions too --- especially if found to be fully capable of pre-meditating those actions.



Indeed you can- but I guess to clarify what I said earlier, being capable of premeditation does not automatically negate the possibility of a successful defence on grounds of insanity. Being in control of one's actions likewise does not mean that the defence is invalid, if one is incapable of recognizing the wrongness of one's actions.

Obviously we've little to go on with regards to this particular suspect- but I very much expect that the possibility of an insanity defence will be raised, and that it may have some merit.


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

What with FBI Director R. Meuller III personally overseeing the investigation one would imagine things will get a) ugly b) interesting, depending on your view : 8) & maybe a few people getting visits from the dudes with the initlals on the back of the windbreakers...


----------



## JMesh (9 Jan 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



> 'I can't trust the current government’
> Referring to District 8, the congressional district served by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Loughner wrote, "The majority of people who reside in District 8 are illiterate — hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure."
> 
> And he adds, "I can't trust the current government because of fabrications. The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar."
> ...



Emphasis mine.

That line would seem to indicate to me he knew the wrongness of his actions. That, coupled with the premeditation, would certainly put a damper on an insanity defence.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (9 Jan 2011)

JMesh said:
			
		

> That line would seem to indicate to me he knew the wrongness of his actions. That, coupled with the premeditation, would certainly put a damper on an insanity defence.


I agree, he probably thought it was one of those things that just had to be done.


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

Rep.Giffords' husband...

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/kellyme.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> Rep.Giffords' husband...
> 
> http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/kellyme.html



Makes her even more high profile, and now her husband will be available and able to speak for her.

We're not even MSM and we've become a spokesman for her.

What about the rest of the victims? Who speaks for them?


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

From The New York Times:

Amid Shock, Recalling Judge’s Life of Service

John M. Roll, the chief federal judge in Arizona who was killed in the attack near Tucson, was described as a tireless advocate for his district and no stranger to the risks of public service.

http://nyti.ms/grDczF


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2011)

I'm sorry, It's unfortunate that these people were harmed and killed.

What is unfortunate, is that the real people, the normal citizens, are being forgotten because some, as far as the MSM is concerned, newsworthy politicians got killed\ hurt.

What about the real, everyday people that got caught in this mess?


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

Indeed!

"Cristina Taylor Greene: Arizona Shooting Claims Life of 9-Year-Old Born on 9/11"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/christina-taylor-greene-a_n_806314.html


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Jan 2011)

Lots of updates at www.azcentral.com

Names of those killed:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/death-toll-shooting-arizona/


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

A cross section of American citizenry (elected officials, a child, seniors) mowed down...hopefully the fact that the "state apparatus" that the "alleged shooter" so vilified in his Youtube "productions" has not  taken him out back and summarily put one just behind & below his earlobe is not lost on him.


----------



## kstart (9 Jan 2011)

More live updates: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html



> At a press conference on Sunday afternoon, Pima County, Ariz., Sheriff Clarence Dupnik offered more details on how suspected Arizona shooter Jared Loughner was disarmed.
> 
> Dupnik said that when Loughner ran out of bullets in his first magazine clip, a woman who had already been shot "went up and grabbed" the new magazine "and tore it away from him." Dupnik said the name of the woman was known but he did not share it during the press conference.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (9 Jan 2011)

My takeaway from this event:

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described the gunman as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl, an aide for the Democratic lawmaker and U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass. Dupnik said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.

In the hours after the shooting, Palin issued a statement in which she expressed her "sincere condolences" to the family of Giffords and the other victims.

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

> The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.
> 
> "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
> 
> ...


This part above ought to go in the other thread where we post the stupidest things we heard.  Mentally unstable people have no rationale for their actions, and for crying out loud, there is a chain of stores called "target": should that be banned too?  Or how about this: there is this dude, mentally deranged, anti-government and all that, and he loaded up some magazines and went down and murdered some people, only as few as he did due to the extraordinary actions of a few brave people, one of whom was wounded by that same mentally deranged man.  People say "target" all the time, as in "we are targetting this, we are targetting that, etc".  It's a valid term, and a very extreme, and dangerous stretch to blame Palin for this. 


But then again, nutjobs out there still blame Bush for 9/11.  :


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

> It's a valid term, and a very extreme, and dangerous stretch to blame Palin for this.


 I agree, and I am no fan of the Caribou Barbie  but man they were backpedalling faster than an all-pro NFL defensive back getting all that stuff of their websites eh? Guess they figured it was now bad optics (pardon the pun).


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> Guess they figured it was now bad optics (pardon the pun).


  Yes, I think they did.

In other news, the Congresswoman is apparently "OK with simple commands".  Hopefully it's a sign of recovery.  I recall when Brady was shot, and how they figured he was going to die, if not be a vegetable.  He's still alive, and very much a functioning citizen.


----------



## kstart (9 Jan 2011)

> It's a valid term, and a very extreme, and dangerous stretch to blame Palin for this. I agree, and I am no fan of the Caribou Barbie  but man they were backpedalling faster than an all-pro NFL defensive back getting all that stuff of their websites eh? Guess they figured it was now bad optics (pardon the pun).



Lol, "Caribou Barbie".

I think psychosis of some sort has to be the primary factor, with homocidal tendencies, that were actualized. Though in this case, the targetting of a public official, it is hard to discern violent psychotic from terrorist.

Amazing recovering signs for the Congresswoman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html#22_chilling


> While there is no evidence at this point to suggest that the shooting was politically motivated, Matt Yglesias points out that an anti-Giffords event was held in June with the billing: *"Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."*Rep. Giffords was also on Sarah Palin's "target list."
> As noted earlier, a gun was dropped at a Giffords event in 2009, and her office was vandalized in March.



She could have chosen other metaphors, seems unnecessarily brainless and it can be argued she is inciting violence, but I doubt that was the intention; someone probably though it was a "cutzy" self-marketing idea to 'target' her supporter-base.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

kstart said:
			
		

> *She could have chosen other metaphors*, seems unnecessarily brainless and it can be argued she is inciting violence, but I doubt that was the intention; someone probably though it was a "cutzy" self-marketing idea to 'target' her supporter-base.


Now that is indeed a stretch.
Other examples of the same metaphor:
One
Two  
Three
And this one shows that the democrats not only used the same metaphor, but also included the line "behind enemy lines"
Four


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

Fair is fair, I suppose.


Anyway, this is going off on a tangent.  All I can say is this, I am amazed at the bravery of the people there who disarmed the shooter, especially the woman (as yet, unnamed) who was also apparently hit by some of this guy's fire.


----------



## desert_rat (9 Jan 2011)

> I am amazed at the bravery of the people there who disarmed the shooter, especially the woman (as yet, unnamed) who was also apparently hit by some of this guy's fire.


 Yeah, that would be I'm sure a challenge enough for trained pers, let alone (what I assume to be) an "average citizen"

from CBS News:

"Loughner is charged with one count of attempted assassination of member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to killing a federal employee. "
 and...

"Investigators said they seized evidence suggesting Loughner planned ahead.

Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at the suspect's home and seized an envelope from a safe with messages such as "I planned ahead," "My assassination" and the name "Giffords" next to what appears to be the man's signature.

"These are preliminary charges and as the investigation goes on there will be additional charges that will be filed," Mueller said. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/09/national/main7228149.shtml


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> "Investigators said *they seized evidence suggesting Loughner planned ahead*.
> 
> Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at the suspect's home and seized an envelope from a safe with messages such as "*I planned ahead*," "My assassination" and the name "Giffords" next to what appears to be the man's signature.


I know that this is a serious event, etc, however, reading the above made me laugh.  "Gee, you think?"


Is it just me or is that just a case of the media stating the bloody obvious.  I mean, even without messages saying "I planned ahead", I would offer that going to a political speech with a bunch of ammo and a rifle and whatever else he had, would suggest a bit of preparation.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (9 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I know that this is a serious event, etc, however, reading the above made me laugh.  "Gee, you think?"
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is that just a case of the media stating the bloody obvious.  I mean, even without messages saying "I planned ahead", I would offer that going to a political speech with a bunch of ammo and a rifle and whatever else he had, would suggest a bit of preparation.



They probably could have worded it better but I think they mean he planned ahead to attack/kill her and her supporters specifically because of what she did and what she stands for (in his eyes), as apposed to those school shooting where the killer has no target in mind.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2011)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> They probably could have worded it better but I think they mean he planned ahead to attack/kill her and her supporters specifically because of what she did and what she stands for (in his eyes), as apposed to those school shooting where the killer has no target in mind.


I think the wording was poor.  I am not reading anything into this.  Just that he planned it.  The "why" is undetermined.


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jan 2011)

Cannon says Arizona shooting 'undermines the safety of us all'

OTTAWA — In response to the shooting of a U.S. congresswoman that's left her fighting for her life, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Sunday that attacks against elected officials "undermine the safety of us all." 

"Regardless of where they occur, attacks against democratically elected officials affect and undermine the safety of us all," he said in a statement. 

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, was shot in the head by an assailant who also opened fire with a handgun on a crowd gathered at a Tucson supermarket for a town-hall-style meeting Saturday. 

Eighteen people were shot, and six were killed, including John Roll, a U.S. federal judge, and a nine-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green. Giffords remains in hospital recovering from emergency surgery. 

Cannon offered condolences to the victims Sunday. 

"On behalf of the government and all Canadians, I offer my condolences to the family and friends of federal Judge John Roll and the other innocent victims of this senseless act of violence," he said. "In particular, I offer sympathy to the family of the young girl among the victims, whose entire life was ahead of her. 

"I would also like to wish a quick recovery to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and to all others who were injured. 

"Canada stands with the people of the United States, our valued friend and neighbour, in this time of grief," he said. 

article link
                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Jan 2011)

> The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.



Granted, it was an emotional day but the good Sheriff should stick to presenting the facts and leave the editorializing to someone else. I'm in the camp that says this guy was a whackjob, neither left nor right - just plain nutso. That being said, if one wants to get in the muck, some indications describe him as "left-wing" - http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php   not right-wing.

Dupnik also stated that the Judge was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the Feds say differently: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0111/Judges_final_actions_key_to_federal_charge_for_his_murder.html



> The criminal complaint federal prosecutors filed Sunday against the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, goes to some lengths to demonstrate that Roll didn't show up at the Giffords event just to say hello to the congresswoman, or on some whim after attending mass, as reports Saturday suggested. That storyline was fueled by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who said "because [Roll] knows Gabrielle very well, [he] came around the corner to say hi. Unfortunately he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
> 
> By contrast, FBI agent Tony Taylor argues that Roll was at the event to talk to Giffords about ongoing problems related to a surge in the federal judicial caseload in Arizona--a problem which the judge has attributed to a boost in the number of federal agents sent to the area to address immigration and border-related crime.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2011)

Very sad day in Arizona.

The suggestions that a deranged person is getting suggestions from the speeches and wordings of political figures may have some validity, but it is interesting that no one spoke about this when books and movies were being made about (fictional) assassinations of President George W Bush (or some Liberal flunky saying "Kill him. Kill him dead" about Prime Minister Harper).

So yes, shut down the inflammatory rhetoric, and condemn it _wherever_ it appears.

Thoughts and prayers for the victims.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (9 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> That being said, if one wants to get in the muck, some indications describe him as "left-wing"


The congresswoman may have been a democrat but her positions would be described as right wing. Yes, he is very left wing, he listed his favorite books on his youtube page which included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Oddly enough all the other books listed are childhood classics and standard high school novels.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Jan 2011)

> The congresswoman may have been a democrat but her positions would be described as right wing



I'm pretty familiar with her. I live here.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2011)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> The congresswoman may have been a democrat but her positions would be described as right wing. Yes, he is very left wing, he listed his favorite books on his youtube page which included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Oddly enough all the other books listed are childhood classics and standard high school novels.



'Mein Kampf' isn't exactly something considered to be 'left wing'. Nor Ayn Rand.

With that said, I think it's inherently dishonest to try to present him as either 'right wing' or 'left wing'. I think his headspace and timing was way too out of whack for any such labels to be applicable.

Nor can the congresswoman be described as 'right wing'. She's a 'blue dog democrat', generally considered fairly centrist- meaning she gets shat on by both sides on a fairly regular basis. She is perhaps 'right' amongst the democratic caucus, but that sits her pretty much in the middle.

It annoys me that we as a society are always so damned insistent on trying to pidgeonhole people along a single axis political spectrum, as if such a description can have much real value.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty familiar with her. I live here.



And, I thought immediately of you when I first saw this story on this site last evening. My condolances to your state and to all the families affected by this. I hope that your injured fully and speedily recover. What a completely tragic situation for anyone to endure - regardless of political stripe.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2011)

Thnaks Vern. That means a lot.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jan 2011)

The New York Times


January 9, 2011
Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona
She read the First Amendment on the House floor — including the guarantee of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” — and then flew home to Arizona to put those words into practice. But when Gabrielle Giffords tried to meet with her constituents in a Tucson parking lot on Saturday, she came face to face with an environment wholly at odds with that constitutional ideal, and she nearly paid for it with her life. 

Jared Loughner, the man accused of shooting Ms. Giffords, killing a federal judge and five other people, and wounding 13 others, appears to be mentally ill. His paranoid Internet ravings about government mind control place him well beyond usual ideological categories. 

But he is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery. With easy and legal access to semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the parking lot, those already teetering on the edge of sanity can turn a threat into a nightmare. 

Last spring, Capitol security officials said threats against members of Congress had tripled over the previous year, almost all from opponents of health care reform. An effigy of Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Maryland Democrat, was hung from a gallows outside his district office. Ms. Giffords’s district office door was smashed after the health vote, possibly by a bullet. 

The federal judge who was killed, John Roll, had received hundreds of menacing phone calls and death threats, especially after he allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans as they tried to cross his land. This rage, stirred by talk-radio hosts, required marshals to give the judge and his family 24-hour protection for a month. Around the nation, threats to federal judges have soared for a decade. 

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. 

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.” Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal. 

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2011)

Thucydides: 



> The suggestions that a deranged person is getting suggestions from the speeches and wordings of political figures may have some validity, but it is interesting that no one spoke about this when books and movies were being made about (fictional) assassinations of President George W Bush.


 And, that is the very least of it.

Since not all of you subscribe to FOX news, you may have missed this (Megyn Kelly is a very smart lady with a couple degrees including a law degree. The interview is several minutes long):

*Megyn Kelly Takes On Sheriff Dupnik Over His “Political Spin” On Shooting*

On Fox News, Megyn Kelly interviewed the man in charge of the Arizona shooting investigation, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Kelly introduced the interview saying, “it is always a difficult task to try to assign reason to an irrational act, but that is one of the things that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is trying to do.”

From there, Kelly was persistent, yet extremely deferential as she expressed the doubts of many who are wondering why the Sheriff is so publicly offering his speculative opinion that “vitriolic rhetoric” helped lead to the tragedy. Although the sheriff had no specific evidence of such rhetoric yet, he claimed there is “no doubt in my mind that when a number of people night and day try to inflame the public, that there’s going to be some consequences from doing that and I think it’s irresponsible to do that.”

When he also warned that “free speech is free speech but it’s not without consequences,” Kelly questioned whether it was appropriate for a sheriff to be injecting their political spin? The sheriff answered that ultimately it’s up to the viewers to decide.

Watch the clip from Fox News: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-takes-on-az-sheriff-clarence-dupnik-over-his-political-spin-on-shooting/


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

I was in The Middle Of Nowhere, New Hampshire when this happened and didn't learn of it until I got back across the border and had service on my iPhone and could read the news, but was rather shocked (well, honestly, not really) how quickly it seems that the right (not the media, actually, they did a very good job on making clear not to try to attribute the events to "the left" or "the right") but bloggers etc tried to paint the guy as a "loony liberal", something that is laughable given what little evidence there is about the guy's leanings, other than the clear fact that he is, as Mortar Guy once put it about some Officer Cadet, "two fingers left of the right the f*** out of 'er".  The stuff I read suggested they assumed that was what their much-villified "mainstream media" would claim.

What this does illustrate is the potential harm that can come from some of the extremely disturbing violent rhetoric that seems to be increasing cropping up in American politics, and while it's mainly coming from one particular end of the spectrum, far better to simply have a non-partisan discussion of it, because the potential for harm is certainly there, whether this particular incident is an illustration or not.

Interesting take on how Palin should have reacted - given that much criticism has been levelled at her - by David Frum is here: http://bit.ly/gY2iQT - worth a read.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What this does illustrate is the potential harm that can come from some of the extremely disturbing violent rhetoric that seems to be increasing cropping up in American politics, and while it's mainly coming from one particular end of the spectrum, far better to simply have a non-partisan discussion of it, because the potential for harm is certainly there, whether this particular incident is an illustration or not.
> 
> Interesting take on how Palin should have reacted - given that much criticism has been levelled at her - by David Frum is here: http://bit.ly/gY2iQT - worth a read.


I call 100% bullshit on the above.  As pointed out earlier, neither left, right, middle, top or bottom have a monopoly.  Right now the "right" may be in focus, but that is probably because a Democrat sits in the White House.  When a Republican was there, the slings and arrows came from the left.

This man was deranged, and his actions probably had as much to do with Moon phases as it did with the use of the metaphor of "targetting" in the previous elections.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

I don't recall, and would welcome an example of slings and arrows of that sort of severity coming from left-leaning media figures, political candidates, or prominent figures in leadership/organizational roles of left-leaning parties or organizations/PACs in the USA during the Bush administration.  I don't think I ever heard a Democrat discussing "Second Amendment Remedies" for dissatisfaction with the Bush Admin. I can't recall a prominent figure on the left asserting that "when ballots fail, bullets work".  I don't remember overt references to guns or encouragement to display them at protests from the left either.  I do remember some loons burning effigies of Bush and things like that - but they were on the fringes of movements, not the leaders of them, and I remember no condoning of that sort of behaviour because it's frankly not beneficial to discourse nor acceptable in civil society.

Yes, Loughner was a loon, but it is rather telling that Palin, for example, is trying to erase the record of the "targetting" and numerous statements/tweets related to it.  It's interesting that now one of SarahPAC's staffers has actually gone on record trying to claim it had something to day with surveyor's transits.  Really?  How do I reload my theodolite, again?  Of course, there are screencaps and caches of this stuff and thus it's not going to work, which is why I thought Frum's posting was apt and a good example of what she probably SHOULD have done.  It's also funny that one Tea Party organization sent out an email telling its folks to refer to him as a liberal loon (which is laughable, since what little we do know about him doesn't support that label at all!).

So, was Loughner driven to his acts by any particular rhetoric or figure?  I don't know yet.  No one does..  I do know he had some really, really bizarre ideas, and that it seems he was obviously mentally ill.  Regardless of the causes of this event, however, it i remains a good prompt to have a frank discussion of the _potential_ implications of such rhetoric.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I call 100% bullshit on the above.  As pointed out earlier, neither left, right, middle, top or bottom have a monopoly.  Right now the "right" may be in focus, but that is probably because a Democrat sits in the White House.  When a Republican was there, the slings and arrows came from the left.
> 
> This man was deranged, and his actions probably had as much to do with Moon phases as it did with the use of the metaphor of "targetting" in the previous elections.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2011)

Just Google  jared loughner and look what comes up. People who went to school with him were afraid he would bring a gun to school; a professor called 911 while he was in class; he had a cam net temple at his residence; etc, etc.

There is not one shred of evidence that this guy followed politics, talk radio, was in touch with anything.

When Fort Hood happened, the left/media/Dems said it had nothing to do Muslims. When the Congresswomen was shot the left/media (except FOX)/Dems said it has everything to do with "the right wing", talk radio, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.

It is the left here (I live part of the year (now) in the US) that are chucking crap.

Did you know that through regulation, not legislation, that President Obama is attempting to control freedom of speech? Already did it with the EPA. 

Did you know that in the last four years that the Democrats have controlled the Congress (including the last two years of President Bush's Presidency) , the US debt has* increased by 5.2 Trillion dollars.* ?

The Dems have very quickly proven that they cannot run the USA, and they are pissed.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jan 2011)

Everyone must have forgotten the lefts assault on Bush even to the extent of making an assassination movie.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2011)

It is not, particularly, a left-right or _culture wars_ issue, we, the West in general, have had periods where the politics were far more 'toxic' - think Goldwater-Johnson, just for example, but did not become this violent. Nor is it a gun control issue; we have had periods in our North American not too distant past when guns were even more readily available - and some of those periods coincided with periods of 'toxic' politics, too.

What seems, to me, to have changed is that we, suddenly, in this wholly _connected_ 21st century, have lost our *self restraint*. We seem to have come, finally, to this point:






With apologies to Sloan

I will admit to harbouring some thoughts, on a variety of topics, that are not very _mainstream_; I have, now and again, been characterized as being somewhat misanthropic; I know how to handle weapons and would have no trouble gaining access to some of them. But I have no inclination to go out and shoot some politician - kick in the ass? yes! shoot? no! - my *self restraint* protects even Denis Coderre and Mayor Ford, both of whom I see as being remarkably alike in their simple minded demagoguery. But, in this era, everyone seems to think they have a right to give effect to their views - however private those views really ought to be.

I don't care what Mr. Loughner thinks about anything and in a sane, _civilized_ world I ought not to ever hear from or about him or, for that matter, from or about 99.99% of humanity who have nothing of substance to say on any matter at all.

(Let's see, there are 8,700 post on Milnet.ca/Army.ca/Navy ... in December 2010, so I must have thought that less than ten (0.01%) had some _substance_ ... I posted more than ten times, so, evidently, most of my posts lack substance ... yep, sounds about right.  :nod: )

Anyway, Mr. Loughner and tens, probably hundreds of millions of others think that a) I, and others more powerful than I, should listen to and care about what they say; and b) when 'a' doesn't happen people like Mr. Loughner believe they need to take some visible action to get my/your/their attention - so the stupid bugger kills a nine year old child. Loughner is nutty as a fruitcake, but so, I fear is the society in which we all live (or die) together.

By the way, in my opinion, coloured by nearly 70 years of life, self restraint = maturity. People who lack self restraint and a decent sense of the privacy of others are children, even if they are 22, or 42 or 72.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Just Google  jared loughner and look what comes up. People who went to school with him were afraid he would bring a gun to school; a professor called 911 while he was in class; he had a cam net temple at his residence; etc, etc.



Right.  Evidence that if nothing else, he was a deeply disturbed individual.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> There is not one shred of evidence that this guy followed politics, talk radio, was in touch with anything.



Well, that's incorrect.  He posted a number of rambly YouTube videos showing he had some interest in politics at the very least.  No one reads Ayn Rand without having some interest in politics, nor Mein Kampf, nor the Communist Manifesto.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> When Fort Hood happened, the left/media/Dems said it had nothing to do Muslims. When the Congresswomen was shot the left/media (except FOX)/Dems said it has everything to do with "the right wing", talk radio, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.



I don't remember that at all.  I remember a lot of supposedly "liberal" media saying that they wouldn't blame "Islam" until there was actual evidence to do so, and when there was, they did.  And to their credit, I'm told even Fox focused merely on the guy's obvious mental problems rather than on any sort of affiliations, which is what the coverage I saw from CNN and MSNBC did.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It is the left here (I live part of the year (now) in the US) that are chucking crap.
> 
> Did you know that through regulation, not legislation, that President Obama is attempting to control freedom of speech? Already did it with the EPA.
> 
> ...



See my post above.  I don't see any overy references to violence in the rhetoric of the mainstream left at least.  And the increases to the debt?  Well, a lot of that is product of Republican policies (unpaid for tax cuts, War in Iraq, etc).  Even though the Dems controlled the Congress after the 06 midterm election they were not exactly in any position to either end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan nor roll back the Bush tax cuts.  Nor did they orchestrate a massive recession which further cut US tax revenue.  Trying to blame one party or the other for deficits with a myriad of complex causes isn't as easy as who was in office when.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

You mean Death of a President?  A British movie?  Which wasn't so much about the assassination as it was about foreign policy?  That wasn't produced by any political party or organization in the USA, nor promoted by them?  That's not exactly comparable.  Sorry.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/ for those interested.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Everyone must have forgotten the lefts assault on Bush even to the extent of making an assassination movie.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Well, that's incorrect.  He posted a number of rambly YouTube videos showing he had some interest in politics at the very least.  No one reads Ayn Rand without having some interest in politics, nor Mein Kampf, nor the Communist Manifesto.


I saw his youtube videos.  There were a number of logically correct arguments; however, the premises were OTL (Out to Lunch).  I don't have access to youtube right now, nor do I care to see them again.  One point I do recall, however, was a bit of anti-establishmentism (if that's a word, compound, hyphenated or otherwise).


As an aside, I have read Ayn Rand only as part of my obligation to do so in my studies of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario.  I want that time back 

In the end, this guy was a loon, neither left nor right, just as Hinkley wasn't "left" for firing on Reagan


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is not, particularly, a left-right or _culture wars_ issue, we, the West in general, have had periods where the politics were far more 'toxic' - think Goldwater-Johnson, just for example, but did not become this violent.



I was thinking of Mayor Cermak of Chicago. The Mayor, and four other people, were shot by a guy with a Saturday night special. He was believed to be aiming for the President. The assassin was electrocuted within two weeks of the Mayor's death.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't recall, and would welcome an example of slings and arrows of that sort of severity coming from left-leaning media figures, political candidates, or prominent figures in leadership/organizational roles of left-leaning parties or organizations/PACs in the USA during the Bush administration.



Here you go:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0109ak.html
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Now people who are trying to hijack the tragedy for their own political purposes (like the NYT article above and the examples below) will discover that there is no "memory hole" in the internet age; blowback will be terrible:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/09/which-democrat-wants-to-hang-the-az-shooting-on-the-tea-party


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jan 2011)

For the record, here's the federal complaint he's dealing with - first court appearance expected later today:


> The United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis K. Burke, announced today that his office filed a federal complaint against Jared Lee Loughner.  The complaint was signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns in Phoenix.
> 
> Loughner is suspected of shooting U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll, Giffords' staff member Gabriel Zimmerman and approximately 16 others Saturday in Tucson, Ariz.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

Thanks.  Your links - well the Malkin one, the only one I really looked at in detail - actually _*prove*_ my point.  I didn't see anything there that wasn't thins like entertainers spouting their opinions (and I don't recall that any of them were really calls for violence), and the actions of "bloggers" (guess what, there's plenty of contemptible stuff in right wing blogs too).  No statements by election candidates or anything like that.  No calls to arms.  Some strongly polemic stuff (I have to remember MILP - that's awesome), sure.  But not "where ballots fail, bullets work" type stuff.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Here you go:
> 
> http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010
> http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0109ak.html
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2011)

*Where was mainstream media on Bush death threats?*

By: Michael Barone 03/26/10 
Senior Political Analyst
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/where-was-mainstream-media-bush-death-threats

The indefatigable Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, links to a collection of pictures of protesters calling for the death of George W. Bush. Question: Can anyone find a front page story in the Washington Post or New York Times decrying documenting and decrying such vile political discourse? Threats of violence are newsworthy to the news reporters of the Post and Times, it seems, only when they’re directed against Democrats.

You can see the protesters here: http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

Some examples attached.

How soon the left forgets.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2011)

*Stop blaming the Tea Party for the Arizona tragedy*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003002.html?hpid=topnews

By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, January 10, 2011

After the attempted car bombing in Times Square last year, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg publicly speculated that the attack had been carried out by "somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health-care bill or something." At the Nation, columnist Robert Dreyfuss wrote that "a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right" was probably behind the bombing. Countless others in the left-wing blogosphere joined the "blame the Tea Party" chorus - until it was disclosed that the perpetrator of the attack was not a Tea Party supporter but a Taliban-trained Islamic radical. Whoops.

Over the weekend, the Tea Party detractors were at it again - this time blaming the movement for the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others. Within hours of the attack, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had issued his own (admittedly) unfounded verdict: "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was . . . she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist." So Tea Party activists are prepared to kill those they cannot defeat at the polls?

Left-wing bloggers and commentators blamed the attack on Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin because she had "targeted" Giffords for defeat during the 2010 elections. The New York Daily News published a column headlined "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district." And an hour after Giffords was shot, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas actually tweeted: "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." He conveniently failed to mention that his Daily Kos had put a "bull's eye" (their words) on Giffords in 2008 - including her on a list of centrist Democrats who should be "targeted" in Democratic primaries. Mission accomplished, Markos?

Giffords's Arizona colleague, Rep. Raul Grijalva, said the Tea Party was responsible because "[When] you stoke these flames, and you go to public meetings and you scream at the elected officials, you threaten them - you make us expendable you make us part of the cannon fodder. . . . Something's going to happen." Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) echoed this sentiment, declaring, "America must not tolerate . . . inflammatory rhetoric that incites political violence." And Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the attack on the "vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." Who, exactly, is Sheriff Dupnik accusing of hatred and bigotry? And why is it acceptable to condemn vitriol in politics while contributing to it in the same breath? This is what passes for restoring civility to our nation's discourse?
*
What is really outrageous is how quickly so many jumped at the opportunity to politicize this tragic shooting - blaming the Tea Party and conservative political rhetoric without a shred of evidence to back those claims*. Police are still investigating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, but it is clear he is a deeply disturbed young man. He had recently been suspended by Tuscon's Pima Community College until he obtained a doctor's certification that "in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others." Students had warned that he might show up in class with a gun. Loughner was rejected by the U.S. Army when he tried to enlist. In a bizarre YouTube rant, he declared: "The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." Government brainwashing through grammar control is not exactly a driving issue for the Tea Party. Conservatives are no more responsible for Loughner's attempted assassination of Giffords than liberals were for John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
*
On Sunday, the New York Times published a front-page story, "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics." Nowhere did it mention the vitriol hurled at Tea Party activists, who are routinely derided to as "tea baggers" and racists, and now stand accused of incitement to murder. *If you want an example of the lack of civility plaguing our political discourse, look no further than this weekend's shameful efforts to use this tragedy to demonize the Tea Party.

Marc A. Thiessen, a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the book "Courting Disaster" and writes a weekly column for The Post.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In other news, the Congresswoman is apparently "OK with simple commands."


I wish I could find a woman like that.



I now return you to:

_LEFT   :argument:   RIGHT_     :


----------



## desert_rat (10 Jan 2011)

or as the crusty PO used to say back in the day..."Not that (left, right takew your pick) YOUR OTHER (left right take your pic) !!!

NOT NOW, NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT RIGHT f$&*G NOW!!


----------



## observor 69 (10 Jan 2011)

I have nothing to add, the article says it all:

The New York Times

January 9, 2011
A Right to Bear Glocks?
By GAIL COLLINS
In 2009, Gabrielle Giffords was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting at a Safeway supermarket in her district when a protester, who was waving a sign that said “Don’t Tread on Me,” waved a little too strenuously. The pistol he was carrying under his armpit fell out of his holster. 

“It bounced. That concerned me,” Rudy Ruiz, the father of one of Giffords’s college interns at the time, told me then. He had been at the event and had gotten a larger vision than he had anticipated of what a career in politics entailed. “I just thought, ‘What would happen if it had gone off? Could my daughter have gotten hurt?’ ” 

Giffords brushed off the incident. “When you represent a district — the home of the O.K. Corral and Tombstone, the town too tough to die — nothing’s a surprise,” she said. At the time, it struck me as an interesting attempt to meld crisis control with a promotion of local tourist attractions. 

Now, of course, the district has lost more people in a shooting in a shopping center parking lot than died at the gunfight of the O.K. Corral, and the story of the dropped pistol has a tragically different cast. 

In soft-pedaling that 2009 encounter, Giffords was doing a balancing act that she’d perfected during her political career as a rather progressive Democrat in a increasingly conservative state. She was the spunky Western girl with a populist agenda mixed with down-home values, one of which was opposition to gun control. But those protesters had been following her around for a while. Her staff members were clearly scared for her, and they put me in touch with Ruiz, who told me the story. 

Back then, the amazing thing about the incident in the supermarket parking lot was that the guy with a handgun in his armpit was not arrested. Since then, Arizona has completely eliminated the whole concept of requiring a concealed weapon permit. Last year, it got 2 points out of a possible 100 in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state score card, avoiding a zero only because its Legislature has not — so far — voted to force colleges to let people bring their guns on campuses. 

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it. 

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet. 

But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked. 

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.” 

America has a long, terrible history of political assassinations and attempts at political assassination. What we did not have until now is a history of attempted political assassination that took the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. The difference is not about the Second Amendment. It’s about a technology the founding fathers could never have imagined. 

“If this was the modern equivalent of what Sirhan Sirhan used to shoot Robert Kennedy or Arthur Bremer used to shoot George Wallace, you’d be talking about one or two victims,” said Helmke. 

Giffords represents a pragmatic, interest-balancing form of politics that’s out of fashion. But, in that spirit, we should be able to find a way to accommodate the strong desire in many parts of the country for easy access to firearms with sane regulation of the kinds of weapons that make it easiest for crazy people to create mass slaughter. Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible. 

Doesn’t it seem like the least we can do? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB&pagewanted=print


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2011)

Well, as a compact 9mm, a GLOCK 19 is actually probably a common choice for "personal protection" (though I don't buy the idea that CCW really is beneficial overall if it just increases proliferation of firearms, and I say that as a gun owner).  It's the 33 rounder that is question - though no one caring a 19 for protection would have such an enormous magazine, and some were available even under the sunsetted ban as long as they were "pre-ban" manufacture.

That said, Arizona's (lack of) gun laws is going to get into the spotlight, and that's probably not a bad thing.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jan 2011)

For your info, the Congresswoman was pro Right to Carry Arms.

The Sheriff who started this off, is a Democrat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> *I have nothing to add, the article says it all:*
> 
> Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.




Unfortunately it doesn't say it all. It only speaks for the prohibitionists. It doesn't speak for, or mention, the millions of US citizens who believe in, and exercise, their 2nd Amendment right. : The NRA is not composed chiefly of gun makers and dealers as alluded by the anti gun faction as part of thier propoganda. It's strength and backbone are the common everyday folk, the men and women, wives and husbands, who are the majority of that organisation.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> said, Arizona's (lack of) *gun laws* is going to get into the spotlight, and that's probably not a bad thing.


Here they are.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2011)

> No statements by election candidates or anything like that



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

_"With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

Pima County, AZ Sheriff Clarence Dupnik held a press conference during which he blamed vitriolic political rhetoric for provoking the mentally unstable, and lamented Arizona's becoming the "mecca of prejudice and bigotry." .

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language *like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"*—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

 Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of a shooting spree that killed a Federal Judge and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had left a trail of online videos in which he railed against the government. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports.

.American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill. "

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"_
More at the link, above...


----------



## kstart (10 Jan 2011)

The nature of political Rhetoric was a concern for Gillfords.  Gillfords is commenting on the vandalism which occurred to her Arizona HQ, post-health bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4&feature=player_embedded

And on the night prior to this shooting: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/gabrielle-giffords-email-centrism-moderation_n_806791.htm


> *Gabrielle Giffords Wrote Email Calling For 'Centrism And Moderation' On Eve Of Shooting *
> 
> WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the shooting that left her critically injured, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) wrote an email to Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R), asking his help in toning down the partisan rhetoric in the country.
> "After you get settled, I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation," wrote Giffords. "I am one of only 12 Dems left in a GOP district (the only woman) and think that we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/arizona-shootings-giffords-tea-party?intcmp=239


> During last year's elections, Giffords was among Democrats targeted on Palin's Facebook page through the crosshairs of a rifle. After protests, Palin removed the crosshairs. Giffords was also the target of a campaign advert by her Tea Party-backed Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, a former marine who served in Iraq, who she beat by the slimmest of margins. "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly," it said. Kelly appeared on his own website in camouflage gear, holding a gun to promote the event.



I don't want to engage in Right-Left and butt horns, it's just interesting that these issues have been a concern for Giffords and that she had publicly spoken on these concerns.

If it makes others feel better though, these sentiments have been reflected by Republicans as well, and many commentators  have properly renounced this act of violence and as well a call for toning things down, in light of this event.

Edit: dropped a link sourcing quote


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jan 2011)

Quote:
"Giffords was among Democrats targeted on Palin's Facebook page through the crosshairs of a rifle"

And there goes another career  :stars:


----------



## desert_rat (10 Jan 2011)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/10/david-frum-what-sarah-palin-should-have-said-about-tucson-shooting/


----------



## kstart (10 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/10/david-frum-what-sarah-palin-should-have-said-about-tucson-shooting/



I applaud this.  Good, constructive criticism.  I'm encouraged to see David Frum is take the higher road, rather than politicizing this.  That's showing some class and character, IMO.


----------



## gun runner (10 Jan 2011)

I believe this nutbar will get a not guilty on grounds of mental illness, and spend the rest of his days in the funnyfarm. The only thing tis will do is give the groups whon want tighter firearms controls will have more ammo to fire at the NRA and all of their friends. That will be an interesting couple of weeks of news, and then we will all get back to our lives. My  :2c:. Ubique


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2011)

Whack-jobs we can all agree on.

I really think I hate these people...    http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-westboro-baptist-church-using-01092011,0,3092922.story


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2011)

gun runner said:
			
		

> I believe this nutbar will get a not guilty on grounds of mental illness, and spend the rest of his days in the funnyfarm.



That seems quite possible. However, I read that after President Reagan was shot, laws were changed to make it more difficult to claim insanity as a defence.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Jan 2011)

More on rhetoric -  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/10/history-lesson-political-rhetoric/

A snippet:


> Those who now say our harsh political rhetoric is something new and generated mostly by an angry political right would do well to take a look at our history. They would find that political debate in some of the most vitriolic terms -- “vitriol” seems to be the word of choice these days -- has been with us and our press since the days when the American colonies began to protest British rule. Icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, bitter political rivals, were not above the fray.
> 
> Eric Burns, in his 2006 book “Infamous Scribblers,” which recounts the “rowdy beginnings” of American journalism, says early newspapers were more weapons of political war than they were impartial chroniclers of daily events.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2011)

"We heard and read similar vitriolic rhetoric through such crusades as the fight to abolish slavery, the battle for women’s suffrage, the 20th century push for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights and efforts to end the Vietnam War. Driving all of those causes was the right to free speech."

Controversial Alabama Governor George Wallace was shot while running for President. He said he "tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened." 
Perhaps the vitriolic rhetoric is what draws the crowds?


----------



## kstart (11 Jan 2011)

It's interesting to read all the rhetoric and reactions amongst various news and media outlets.
If you scroll down the page, this site lists some of the common and "alt-news" media links:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

I don't think it's that outlandish to suggest the possibility that Loughner was 'psychotically engaged' perhaps with some of the tensions surrounding Gillards' political career, the tensions of the community.

How are people so against health care?  There's some rhetoric that universal access to health care = the feared "socialism", this combined with intense fears of economic collapse, loss of democracy, Constitution, chaos and anarchy-- there are some alt-media sites which are very focussed on these issues.  Lots of fear and uncertainty and distrust, right or wrong.  Fear of the breakdown of the State, fear of the "globalists". . .

For example, an ad showing up on Alex Jones' site, contains this script:


> “IT BEGINES WITH THE PROMISE OF
> HOPE & CHANGE
> COMMUNISM…FASCISM…SOCIALISM…”
> [Inserted, is a photo collage: Stalin, Hitler, Obama (in that order)]
> ...


And "hope and change" a possible allusion as well to Obama.

Correlates to some of Loughner's 'reading list', The Communist Manifesto  (Karl Marx); Mein Kamph (Hitler): it can of course be total coincidence.

Loughner has fears of mind control, it's also reflected in the following proclamation:


> "ALEX JONES’ INFOWARS.COM: BECAUSE THERE IS A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND”


 (http://www.infowars.com/)

There is reflected a lot of fear of catastrophe, the fall of the economy, the rise of a police state. . . these seem to be some of the contents of the advertisements on these sites:

How to Survive Martial Law
http://www.martiallawsurvival.com/?utm_source=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_medium=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_term=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_content=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84&utm_campaign=InfoWarsMartialLaw300x84

I firmly believe that conditions in this country are going to deteriorate rapidly once the right “event” triggers a crisis. Despite advice from well meaning friends, I felt I owed it to my fellow citizens who have been lulled into pacifism by promises of "hope and change." However, this information is only for the stout of heart, because what you will learn about it may shake your patriotism deeply... and perhaps even lead you to doubt your allegiance. 

This is not to pick on Alex Jones, I'm sure there are plenty of examples.

I'm not against free speech.  I'm just saying that when one views these contents, one can see the fears it can feed, the panic, the potential to inflamme an unbalanced person who is not psycholigcally able to detach from it.

This advertisement on both Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones' site:

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM128/PR (It’s a long audio recording)  It expresses what maybe be more valuable than an American dollar in times of economic collapse.

It just seems to me that some of these contents are reflected in Laughner's rambles. . .

But the answers pend on a good forensics investigation; checking out the sites he subscribed to or followed.  It will also depend on the psych evaulations of the forensic psychiatrists, etc.

I'm just saying it's possible, Loughner has been influenced and or engaged in this sort of stuff, wherever exactly he finds it.

I'm saying look at the particular, the case of an unbalanced person, how they might react to this stuff?  It seems like Loughner was engaged at some level with some of this stuff, whatever stuff it is exactly or from where, particularly.  But it will be a forensics investigation, interviewing, etc. to come to more clearer determinations.  Psychosis, could have come as in an 'internet developed" psychosis, never leaving the parent's basement, or those few youth that are unlucky in first episode psychosis from pot smoking (CBC Documentary :"the Downside of High")


----------



## desert_rat (11 Jan 2011)

Not meaning to digress or amp up (or is that down?) the signal to noise ratio but about ten seconds on "the google" and you get stuff like..

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/can-you-say-posse-comitatus/

Is all this stuff just sort of the  21st century version of "Helter Skelter" just minus the dune buggies and the "charismatic leader"?


----------



## Redeye (11 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html
> 
> _*like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"*—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate._



It seems the attempts to create moral equivalence are getting desperate.  This remark, put in its context, was actually quoting the movie "The Untouchables" and was made in a context which was clearly in jest (and, had it been made by a Republican, would also not fit into the definition of the "violent rhetoric" which is the problem).  Comparing this to "where ballots fail, bullets work" and "Second Amendment remedies" among other notes isn't really equivalent... but again, regardless of what actually motivated this psycho, playing a blame game is pointless, rather, it should be a stark reminder that "words matter" and perhaps using that sort of rhetoric is really not productive to the political process.  Neither is the other trend (which ironically is now being decried by a certain faction that seems fond of its use) of repeating lies hoping they become truth which has turned political debate, which I follow fairly closely in the US, into farce.

What motivated Loughner?  No one knows still and speculation doesn't really help, but if it does prompt some reflection by all on the messages they send, well, some good can come of tragedy perhaps.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What motivated Loughner?  No one knows still and speculation doesn't really help, but if it does prompt some reflection by all on the messages they send, well, some good can come of tragedy perhaps.


You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jan 2011)

Well said.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it.



We had this discussion during an AAR this weekend in New Hampshire where a number of things didn't go well for me.  A bit of self-effacement sucks when you do it - but I quickly realized that it's what made for  a good learning experience, and sharing the rather crafty way in which my OC demonstrated one of the errors with my platoon showed some integrity in the process.

It is not the falling down, it's the getting back up that matters - and for what it might be worth I know this incident will prompt me to think a little more carefully about how I phrase things in debates, not that it makes a huge difference in the world but it to me matters that I will hold myself to a standard I expect of others.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jan 2011)

According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> That seems quite possible. However, I read that after President Reagan was shot, laws were changed to make it more difficult to claim insanity as a defence.


----------



## kstart (11 Jan 2011)

desert_rat said:
			
		

> Not meaning to digress or amp up (or is that down?) the signal to noise ratio but about ten seconds on "the google" and you get stuff like..
> 
> http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/can-you-say-posse-comitatus/
> 
> Is all this stuff just sort of the  21st century version of "Helter Skelter" just minus the dune buggies and the "charismatic leader"?



That's what it reminded of me as well, "Helter Skelter", there's a sense of unrest and fears, and a lunatic goes on a fringe (minus the groupies).  



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> You're right: nobody knows and speculation doesn't help at all.  And I find that good often comes out of tragedy.  It's like when people err.  It's not the error that defines them, but rather how they react to it.



We can't really know and the speculations can be adding more flames.  We have to wait for the forensic investigations.  And yes, I believe some good can come out of tragedy, prompting some reflection on the way things are being done and that's from many levels.  

I'm going to refrain from further speculations.

More digression, but this is just a quote off my coffee mug  :


> peace.  it does not mean to be in a place where there is no noise, trouble or hard work.  it means to be in the midst of those things and still be calm in your heart.  (unnown)



Calm and with awareness can also be contageous: "lead by example", everyone's duty to do their best.  (There is a brilliant Vietnam Veteran, by the name of Charles Figley who's done some excellent work on levels of traumatization: the levels of direct (happened to you) and witnessing: 1)vicarious/bystander (direct witnessing) 2) simultaneous (all affected, at the scene); 3) contageous (trauma of others in relation to the exposure of others who are traumatized, e.g. taking on those feelings). . . group/family. . . beyond. . .?).  It makes me consider the value of reflecting calm, rationality.

Redeye, I was just responding while you were.  I think we are in agreement.


----------



## kstart (11 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.



I think that's very possible as well.  I'd be interesting in seeing the results of the psych assessments, and that will take time for that to be done properly.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> According to whatever news I was listening to this morning, CNN I think, the odds are an insanity defence will fail because there seems to be evidence of premeditation, which essentially proves it was not an insane act.  The reporter or pundit highlighted that indeed this definition was changed (strengthened) after the Reagan shooting incident.



More on that.
"It’s not clear yet whether attorneys for Jared Loughner’s lawyers will attempt the insanity defense in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), but John Hinckley’s successful insanity claim after shooting President Ronald Reagan led Congress to raise the bar, making the task harder, says the Associated Press. It is expected that the Justice Department will seek a death penalty.":
http://thecrimereport.org/2011/01/11/loughner-may-cite-diminished-capacity-to-figh/


----------



## desert_rat (11 Jan 2011)

great and thought-provoking discussion folks 

looks like he has the "dream team for *accused & notorious bad guys & gals" for representation... 

Judy Clarke, who has defended, amongst others, The Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympics bomber, Susan Smith (who drowned her toddlers in So. Carolina)

http://nyti.ms/e831r1


----------



## 57Chevy (11 Jan 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "It’s not clear yet whether attorneys for Jared Loughner’s lawyers will attempt the insanity defense



Of course she (Judy Clarke) will. 
What other insane defense could she possibly come up with ?


----------



## Sapplicant (11 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I really think I hate these people...    http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-westboro-baptist-church-using-01092011,0,3092922.story




If someone were to mow over all of their higher-ups and bring the "church"* down, I'd be willing to bet _they_ could use the insanity defence, just, not in the way we're accustomed to.  



*Calling their organization a church hardly seems appropriate, or acceptable.


----------



## kstart (11 Jan 2011)

I'm in agreement, _Sapplicant, Muskrat89_

This link to an article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11mental.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes

Comments from Dr. Fuller Torrey, who I believe is a leading authority re: the study of schizophrenia



> I’d say the chances are 99 percent that he has schizophrenia,” said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, the founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates stronger laws to require treatment for people with severe mental illnesses. “He was together enough to take courses, and people with untreated schizophrenia can function very well for periods. But when you see these rambling, incoherent writings and comments, there is almost no other disorder where this is a prominent symptom.”
> Many of Mr. Loughner’s reported comments — about currency and government — also suggest a growing paranoia. As a rule, violence is less common among people with mental illness than is often assumed; a vast majority are no more likely to commit harm than anyone else.



Re: influence, political environment:



> [“Certainly not all paranoids are mass murderers” by a long shot, said Dr. Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist in New York, “but almost all mass murderers are paranoid.” . . .
> 
> . . .It is also not clear, some doctors said, that today’s partisan climate had any bearing on the assault. “The psychosis picks up on the grand themes of the day, whether those are antigovernment or something else,” Dr. Stone said.
> In the logic of delusion, a grievance may be conflated with some larger mission, whether religious, political or artistic. “It’s not political thinking,” Dr. Torrey said. “It’s psychotic thinking.”
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Jan 2011)

Some bi-partisan good:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/arizonans-rally-prevent-westboro-church-disruption-shooting-victims-funerals/


----------



## Sapplicant (12 Jan 2011)

Interesting piece on the head surgeon of the trauma unit at the hospital that treated the victims. He is a veteran of both the Iraqi and Afghan wars.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2011)

The Sherrif covers himself and his department in shame. Maybe he should STFU and actually concentrate on law enforcement?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html

(quote]
*Pima County sheriff should remember duty*

Jan. 11, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

On Saturday afternoon, with his friend Gabby Giffords in surgery fighting for her life, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik railed against the tense partisan politics - "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry" - that prompted the mass murders outside Tucson, in his view.

And, jarring as such claims may be, we understood. Or tried to understand, despite the spectacle of a lawman - an official whose very job it is to dispassionately gather facts and to maintain order and calm - tying the attack on Rep. Giffords and others to political speech in Arizona, which he considers prejudiced and bigoted. There is no evidence that the state's politics in any way contributed to this atrocity.

Was Dupnik unnecessarily inflammatory? It seemed so. But it came mere hours following a horrific, bloody mass murder. If you weren't on edge, you weren't being human. But then, on Sunday, the venting continued anew. And a horrified nation began paying closer attention to the Pima County sheriff.

The world's eyes, once again, focused on Arizona for the worst of reasons. And Dupnik stood before the cameras interpreting the shootings as politically motivated, despite an increasing weight of evidence depicting the shooting suspect, Jared Loughner, as a mentally ill young man who rambled incoherently about pervasive bad grammar and other apolitical obsessions. Even Dupnik has observed that Loughner had made death threats against others and that they had been investigated by police.

Still, Dupnik used the opportunities to blame Arizona's lax, new gun laws and, again, the angry "rhetoric" of talk radio. The shootings were spurred, he suggested, by "the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates."

Dupnik took up his cause again on Monday. And, in response, we have to say at last . . . enough. Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty.

With each passing hour, we learn more about the 22-year-old suspect. And everything we learn adds to the profile of a deeply troubled young man detached from reality. There is nothing to date that suggests any partisan motivation for his crimes, whether right-wing or left.

Dupnik needs to recall that he is elected to be a lawman. With each additional comment, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County is revealing his agenda as partisan, and, as such, every bit as recklessly antagonistic as the talk-show hosts and politicians he chooses to decry.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html#ixzz1AnMdGlW1


> and:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2011)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/democrats-single-sharron-angle-calling-limits-speech/

Palin Criticizes Manufacturers of 'Blood Libel' as Proponents of Speech Limits Cite Sharron Angle

Published January 12, 2011

AP

Sarah Palin made a call to conscious Wednesday for those who would manufacture "a blood libel" for last weekend's Arizona shooting, saying "acts of monstrous brutality ... begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively" with Americans exercising their constitutional freedoms.

The former Republican vice-presidential candidate, the target of many pontificators ascribing motive to gunman Jared Lee Loughner, charged in the Tucson attack that killed six and injured 14 others, had been silent since shortly after the Saturday shooting when she issued a two-line statement offering her prayers for the families and victims.

But Palin's name -- and those of others, including Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle -- had been central in the early accusations over what spurred the shooting. Liberal media pundits assigned blame by citing Palin's political action committee's website, which showed crosshairs on districts that it was targeting in the November midterm, including the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the believed target of the gunman who was wounded in the shooting.

Others said Angle's comments on the campaign trail also incited violence. The debate about heated political rhetoric ratcheted up so quickly and vigorously -- even before Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter -- some Democratic lawmakers called for curbs on free speech.

In a Facebook posting issued Wednesday morning, Palin lamented the "irresponsible statements" of those casting blame on political figures.

The motive behind Jared Lee Loughner's attack in Arizona remains a mystery, but some Democratic lawmakers are looking to curb speech they claim creates an "aura of hatred" -- and are pointing to failed Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada as an example of the need for federal regulations.

The motive behind Jared Lee Loughner's attack in Arizona remains a mystery, but some Democratic lawmakers are looking to curb speech they claim creates an "aura of hatred" -- and are pointing to failed Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada as an example of the need for federal regulations.

"If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin said.

She added that claims that the political rhetoric is somehow more heated today than ever before seem unfounded, noting that "back in those 'calm days'" of the Republic, political differences were occasionally settled with "dueling pistols."

But even as Palin decried the accusations, some lawmakers said federal regulations are needed to stop heated speech.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., on Monday referenced a comment by Angle in calling for a change in the nation's political dialogue -- by will or by law.

"'Don't retreat, reload.' Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There's only one way to read this," Slaughter said.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Fox News that Angle "talked about people rising up and taking over the government by force, using their guns. She was very explicit."

Sherman said that even if language used by Angle and her supporters hadn't incited the shootings in Arizona, eventually it will lead to violence.

"I'm saying if you have a heart attack, stop smoking, not because nicotine may or may not have caused your last heart attack, you'll never know, but it's going to cause the next one," Sherman said. "And if we continue to bring into the mainstream and treat as civil those who call for violence and disruption and assassination and revolution and insurrection, then whether that caused what happened in Tucson or not, it will cause the next tragedy."

Angle defended herself in a statement released late Tuesday.

"Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people's constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant. The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger," Angle said.

"Finger-pointing toward political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known," Angle added. "I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate. Inappropriately attributing blame of a singular tragedy to achieve a political agenda is contrary to civil discourse, and is a media ploy to which I refuse to belong."

In the wake of the shooting, the National Hispanic Media Coalition used the incident to reiterate its call for the FCC to update its definitions of hate speech in media. It also asked the FCC to "examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds."

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., said he has no knowledge about what motivated Loughner to attack Giffords and the others, but he still wants legislation that bans the use of certain imagery when talking about congressional targets.

"I want to eliminate what may have been," Brady told Fox News. "I'm not a psychologist ... All I'm saying is you can't put a bull's eye or a crosshair on a member of Congress."

And on Tuesday, Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., was quoted in the Oregon Statesman-Journal saying he blamed conservative media personalities like Fox News' Glenn Beck and radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"I hold them personally responsible. I don't know how they can sleep at night after this," Schrader said.

Loughner, the accused gunman with no discernible connection to American political discourse, has not stated why he allegedly shot 20 people in the assault at a Tucson Safeway grocery store. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the community college student who had been suspended last October had frequented gaming websites seeking answers to questions about why he couldn't find a job or get a girlfriend.

More than a decade ago, lawmakers like Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., warned that violence in movies and video games could cause violence in life. But graphic imagery and heated rhetoric moved to the political theater long before that. 

Several recent examples have been offered from both sides of the aisle, including President Obama's quoting from the film "The Untouchables" in which appears the statement, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."

And even before movie references, crosshairs and bull's eyes, "battlefields" were drawn across campaign and policy landscapes. President Lyndon Johnson's State of the Union speech called for a figurative "War on Poverty," a precursor to the Reagan administration's equally figurative "War on Drugs."

Slaughter said that while she's not up to speed on current regulations, the Federal Communications Commission should work to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.

"No one owns the airwaves," Slaughter said. "They are owned by the people."

If lawmakers were to seek remedies to quiet distasteful discussion, the so-called Fairness Doctrine is at the top of lists inspiring supporters and alarming opponents.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told National Public Radio said he "came up in a time that the Fairness Doctrine did not allow media outlets to say things about a candidate or a person in public office without giving that person equal time to respond. And I really believe that everybody needs to take a look at where we are pushing things, and may need to take a serious step back and evaluate what's going on here."

But not everyone may be on board with a hasty turn to bottling up dissenting voices. Delivering a speech Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said media have the power to inspire, motivate and inform. "But they also have the power to inflame and incite. The seething rhetoric has gone too far."

However, Leahy added, "In a free society, the society that we Americans must always want our country to be, the government should not and must not restrain free expression."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also suggested Tuesday in a speech at the Center for American Progress that the blame game has no winner.

"The big question wasn't whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but whether our political conversation was worthy of the confidence and trust of the American people," he said.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2011)

Any suggestion to limit speech frightens me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/democrats-single-sharron-angle-calling-limits-speech/
> 
> Palin Criticizes Manufacturers of 'Blood Libel' as Proponents of Speech Limits Cite Sharron Angle
> 
> ...



_My emphasis added._


I know we cannot and should not expect much from Ms. Palin, but this business of expropriating a term like "blood libel" for this historically inconsequential event, painful though it may be for those involved, is going a bit far.

The blood libel, rather like the Rape of Nanjing and, indeed, the holocaust of the Jews in Europe in the 1940s, are historically significant and specific, _sui generis_, events. They, and their descriptors, should be left alone, Ms. Palin needs better advisors; her assaults on the language are bad enough, her assaults on our shared, human history are unforgivable.


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Jan 2011)

Actually, I saw that term used previous to Palin using it, in the context of this particular event. It started popping up on Sunday/Monday. That probably doesn't change your opinion of her use of it, or making it more mainstream, but I don't think she gets credit for coming up with the term.

*Edit to add* Glenn Reynolds, WSJ, January 10  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Actually, I saw that term used previous to Palin using it, in the context of this particular event. It started popping up on Sunday/Monday. That probably doesn't change your opinion of her use of it, or making it more mainstream, but I don't think she gets credit for coming up with the term.
> 
> *Edit to add* Glenn Reynolds, WSJ, January 10  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html




Nope; my opinion remains the same, but I smeared Ms. Palin more than she, alone, deserved.

Some terms have *real* meanings, and a shooting that results in a half dozen deaths and a few wounded, all at the hands of some unhinged nincompoop, doesn't qualify.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Jan 2011)

New poll out shows that a majority of Americans dont buy the spin of the democrats and the media.



> Rasmussen reported:
> 
> Americans have closely followed news stories about the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona on Saturday, and most don’t feel politics was the cause of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danke (12 Jan 2011)

Jon Stewart's opening monologue on Monday was great. He avoided the comedy for the most part and went with some heartfelt words. 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-10-2011-denis-leary (might only work in the US; I've got Firefox set up to trick sites like that into thinking I'm in America)

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---january-10-2011/#clip399095

Starts around the 2:50 mark.

I've always been impressed with the thought that goes into his stuff; it's easy to characterize The Daily Show as partisan or "just a comedy show", but behind the humour there's some great stuff.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2011)

Blowback begins against those who spread partisan nonsense in reaction to the tragedy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html



> *Massacre, followed by libel*
> By Charles Krauthammer
> Wednesday, January 12, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## RememberanceDay (12 Jan 2011)

I'm just going to say that it is a pure miracle that the congresswoman survived. What are the odds of surviving being shot in the brain at pointblank range? And now with her awesome recovery, now sitting up and breathing on her own? Amazing. Pure miracle.


This woman will surely do great things.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2011)

> for this historically inconsequential event, painful though it may be for those involved


, and 


> Some terms have real meanings, and a shooting that results in a half dozen deaths and a few wounded, all at the hands of some unhinged nincompoop, doesn't qualify.



It may be, but the President and all the Air Force One package, are now there, and he will be on every TV network in the US, and probably CTV/CBC tonight.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... the President and all the Air Force One package, are now there, and he will be on every TV network in the US, and probably CTV/CBC tonight.




Indeed it is, here in Texas, and will be - probably world-wide, except maybe for the sensible Chinese. Obama is trying to follow Bill _"Ah feel yo' pain"_ Clinton as the 'Consoler in Chief.' After all it helped Clinton recover from a bad disastrous mid-term election, why not try it again?


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jan 2011)

> After all it helped Clinton recover from a bad disastrous mid-term election, why not try it again?


Exactly.

A good piece below. Canada has no winners. CBC/CTV/G & M/ Tor Star are the same as the NY Times. 

The Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075660624213434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The Authoritarian Media 
The New York Times has crossed a moral line.
By  James Taranto   
                        
After the horrific shooting spree, the editorial board of New York Times offered a voice of reasoned circumspection: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions . . .," the paper counseled.

Here's how the sentence continued: ". . . from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East."
The Tucson Safeway massacre prompted exactly the opposite reaction. What was once known as the paper of record egged on its readers to draw invidious conclusions that are not only prejudicial but contrary to fact. In doing so, the Times has crossed a moral line.

Here is an excerpt from yesterday's editorial:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of "the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country." Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal. . . .

Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.

To describe the Tucson massacre as an act of "political violence" is, quite simply, a lie. It is as if, two days after the Columbine massacre, a conservative newspaper of the Times's stature had described that atrocious crime as an act of "educational violence" and used it as an occasion to denounce teachers unions. Such an editorial would be shameful and indecent even if the arguments it made were meritorious.
The New York Times has seized on a madman's act of wanton violence as an excuse to instigate a witch hunt against those it regards as its domestic foes. "Instigate" is not too strong a word here: As we noted yesterday, one of the first to point an accusatory finger at the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin was the Times's star columnist, Paul Krugman. Less than two hours after the news of the shooting broke, he opined on the Times website: "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."

This was speculative fantasy, irresponsible but perhaps forgivable had Krugman walked it back when the facts proved contrary to his prejudices. He did not. His Monday column evinced the same damn-the-facts attitude as the editorial did.

In the column, Krugman blames the massacre on "eliminationist rhetoric," which he defines as "suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary." He rightly asserts that "there isn't any place" for such rhetoric. But he falsely asserts that it is "coming, overwhelmingly, from the right."

He provides exactly one example: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, "urging constituents to be 'armed and dangerous.' " Such a statement does seem problematic, although in the absence of context, and given what former Times public editor Daniel Okrent has described as Krugman's "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"--an observation that surely applies to nonnumeric facts as well--we are disinclined to trust Krugman's interpretation of Bachmann's statement.

In any case, the evidence Krugman offers is insufficient to establish even the existence of "eliminationist rhetoric" on the right. To be sure, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such rhetoric does exist on the right, and we join Krugman in deploring it.
But Krugman's assertion that such rhetoric comes "overwhelmingly from the right" is at best wilfully ignorant. National Review's Jay Nordlinger runs down some examples on the left:

Even before [George W.] Bush was elected president, the kill-Bush talk and imagery started. When Governor Bush was delivering his 2000 convention speech, Craig Kilborn, a CBS talk-show host, showed him on the screen with the words "SNIPERS WANTED." Six years later, Bill Maher, the comedian-pundit, was having a conversation with John Kerry. He asked the senator what he had gotten his wife for her birthday. Kerry answered that he had taken her to Vermont. Maher said, "You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone." (New Hampshire is an early primary state, of course.) Kerry said, "Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone." (This is the same Kerry who joked in 1988, "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle.") Also in 2006, the New York comptroller, Alan Hevesi, spoke to graduating students at Queens College. He said that his fellow Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."

One example Nordlinger misses: Just this past October, then-Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania told the Times-Tribune of Scranton: "That [Rick] Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him." Kanjorski was defeated for re-election the following month, but he turns up today on the op-ed page of--oh, yes--the New York Times:

The House speaker, John Boehner, spoke for everyone who has been in Congress when he said that an attack against one of us is an attack against all who serve. It is also an attack against all Americans.

Does that include Gov. Rick Scott, Mr. Kanjorski?

Left-wing eliminationist rhetoric has occasionally made its way into the very pages of the Times. Here are the jaunty opening paragraphs of a news story dated Dec. 26, 1995:

As the Rev. Al Sharpton strode through Harlem toward Sylvia's restaurant and a meeting with the boxing promoter Don King last week, the greetings of passers-by followed him down Lenox Avenue.

"Hey, Reverend Al, you going to kill Giuliani?" one man shouted, in a joking reference to the latest confrontation between Mr. Sharpton and the Mayor. Mr. Sharpton waved silently and walked on.
"Giuliani," he said, "is the best press agent I ever had."

The next paragraph puts this eliminationist rhetoric into context:

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and others have accused Mr. Sharpton of using racially charged language that contributed to the emotional pitch of a dispute between a Jewish clothing store owner and the black owner of a record shop. They have suggested he had a responsibility to defuse the tensions that rose until a gunman set Freddy's clothing store afire Dec. 8, killing himself and seven others.

(As an aside, it is no credit to our colleagues at Fox News Channel that Sharpton is a frequent guest on their programs.)

Another bit of eliminationist rhetoric appeared as the lead sentence of an article on the Times op-ed page in December 2009: "A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." The author: Paul Krugman.

A March 2010 profile of Krugman in The New Yorker featured this related detail:
Once Obama won the primary, Krugman supported him. Obviously, any Democrat was better than John McCain.

"I was nervous until they finally called it on Election Night," Krugman says. "We had an Election Night party at our house, thirty or forty people."

"The econ department, the finance department, the Woodrow Wilson school," [Robin] Wells [Krugman's wife] says. "They were all very nervous, so they were grateful we were having the party, because they didn't want to be alone. We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years."

"One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi."

Burning an effigy, like burning an American flag, is constitutionally protected symbolic speech. It is also about as eliminationist as speech can get, short of a true threat or incitement. To Krugman, it is a fun party activity. It is shockingly hypocritical for such a man to deliver a pious lecture about the dangers of eliminationist rhetoric.

The Times is far from alone in responding to the Tucson massacre with false accusations and inflammatory innuendoes against its foes. We focus on the Times because it is the leader--the most authoritative voice of the left-liberal media, or what used to be called the "mainstream" media.

What accounts for this descent into madness? We think the key lies in this sentence from yesterday's Times editorial: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible . . ."

Particularly their supporters in the media. This echoes a comment House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer made on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday:

One of the things that you and I have discussed, Bob [Schieffer, the host], when--when you and I grew up, we grew up listening to a set of three major news outlets--NBC, ABC, and, of course, CBS. Most of the people like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, Huntley-Brinkley and they saw their job as to inform us of the facts and we would make a conclusion. Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting--of inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral.

The campaign of vilification against the right, led by the New York Times, is really about competition in the media industry--not commercial competition but competition for authority. When Bob Schieffer and Steny Hoyer were growing up, the New York Times had unrivaled authority to set the media's agenda, with the three major TV networks following its lead.

The ensuing decades have seen a proliferation of alternative media outlets, most notably talk radio and Fox News Channel, and a corresponding diminution of the so-called mainstream media's ability to set the boundaries of political debate.

Its authority dwindling, the New York Times is resorting to authoritarian tactics--slandering its competitors in the hope of tearing them down. Hoyer is right. Too many news outlets are busy "inciting people . . . to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral." The worst offender, because it is the leader, is the New York Times. Decent people of whatever political stripe must say enough is enough.


----------



## desert_rat (12 Jan 2011)

"GOPers Steer Clear of Palin's "Blood Libel" Comments"


http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/palin-blood-libel-republicans-response


Sarah Palin dropped her latest rhetorical bombshell on Wednesday morning, claiming, in a widely circulated video, that media reports highlighting incendiary right-wing rhetoric (hers in particular) in the wake of the Tucson shootings was comparable to "blood libel." Palin lobbed the term—which has historically referred to the claim that Jews used the blood of Christian babies to make matzoh—just as the House was convening in Washington for the first time since Saturday. Hours before a congressional prayer service for the victims of the shooting rampage, Republican lawmakers made it clear they didn't want to go near the former Alaska governor's inflammatory remarks.

"I'm going to let her speak for herself," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a tea party-backed freshman, told Mother Jones before walking onto the House floor for speeches mourning the Arizona victims. Other House Republicans were also cautious about weighing in. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who's made joint appearances with Palin, said: "I haven't seen the video yet... I gotta watch the video before I comment." 

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), one of the Palin-backed "Mama Grizzlies" during the midterms, had even less to say. When asked whether she any comment or reaction to Palin's use of "blood libel," Noem said, "No, I don't." Pressed further on whether the media attacks on Palin over the Arizona shooting have been out of line, Noem replied, "I don't have a comment for that."

But at least one House Republican stepped forward to warn the media against using Palin's latest "blood libel" comment to unfairly malign her. "I didn't hear what she said exactly, but I just want to make sure that people on both sides of the media don’t take this and try to turn it into something that I’m not sure that it is," said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), leaing the House GOP's caucus meeting on Wednesday, adding that Palin has been unjustly attacked in the past. The Pennsylvania Republican, however, declined to comment on her specific remarks. "I honestly couldn't you exactly what she said, so I couldn’t put a comment out there that would be intelligent."

Shuster, however, did offer up his own reinterpretation of Jewish history in response to another question. When asked about accused assailant Jared Lee Loughner's political leanings, Shuster said: "I don't know. We'll uncover that as we go forward...But from what I heard, his two favorite books were Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto—that tells me the guy is on the left. People like to associate Hitler with the right, but in fact he was a socialist himself."


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2011)

A bit of context of a political news story here  in Canada:




> Layton *targets *  Tory ridings in NDP pre-election tour
> New Democrats reckon their best hope for growth in the next election lies in ridings held by the Tories. That's why NDP Leader Jack Layton is embarking on a pre-election tour taking *direct aim *  at the prime minister in primarily Tory ridings across the country...
> 
> He said the NDP soon plans to unveil its newly renovated *campaign war room*, has TV ads in the works, financing in place, and campaign jet lined up.


And even non-political  news stories:



> Loonie takes *aim *  at $1.02



So, Palin isn't alone in using such terms.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jan 2011)

Of course Palin isn't alone; it's just that a lot of people fear her political influence.  She's an effective sh!t-magnet and diversion.  The Republicans and TPers can probably get a lot done as long as they do it quietly and keep her out in front to draw the flak.  If military terms were removed from political lexicons, people would be temporarily hard-pressed to write about politics in any way which might express some sort of emphasis.

None of what has transpired should be surprising.  Almost from the inception of the TP movement, its detractors have been hoping for (some openly musing about fabricating) a pretext to place it beyond polite discourse.

What is amusing is that groundless accusations should be laid, and then the accusers should chide the accused for prolonging a distasteful conversation when the latter rise to defend themselves.  Every sneak attacker likes to quickly declare a ceasefire to consolidate his gains.  Those who call for negotiating the terms of public discourse do so only because they are in a position of relative weakness.  When they were the underdogs, it suited them just fine to use every rhetorical weapon in the arsenal.

The only reasonable response is to make a counteroffer: that the political "left" to go on probation (stop using "incendiary" language) for at least the next two years, and four more after that if a Republican wins the presidency in 2012.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2011)

Correlation is not cause.

http://blog.american.com/?p=24876



> *The Golden No-Vitriol Age Wasn’t So Golden*
> By Jay Weiser
> January 12, 2011, 9:52 pm
> 
> ...



and; the issue has silenced President Obama (who is usually quick to "Bring a gun" or urge people to "Punish their enemies"). Like I said, there is no memory hole anymore and blowback happens quickly and effectively:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/what_the_left_did_wrong.html



> *What the left did wrong*
> By Jennifer Rubin
> 
> Why were the last four days a mini-disaster for the swampland of the left? It boils down to: facts, response and time.
> ...


----------



## kstart (13 Jan 2011)

Thucydides wrote:


> Correlation is not cause.



Exactly. 

I don't like the political games aspect of media and the rigid ideological identification it calls upon, the splitting into 'camps', points for this side or that side; the taking one thing and distorting it outside of the contexts of the speakers, these agendas (all discourse involves that and we're all constituted to a certain degree [further reading: Foucault]), but it's always a hope we can go outside of those things to a level of reasonable debate (but it seems that it becomes frozen, a lot of noise-making, seems to have the effect of blurring and thwarting of reasonable debate?).  
There's a lot of distorted thinking and it's a good goal to work towards clearing it, as an on-going endeavour, as more facts are known.

I found Obama’s address/eulogy to be quite moving and appropriate to the purpose of memorial, honouring the victims, the heros and a call for unity as a nation grieves, some sense of common purpose and meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmXQDIGA  He's a very sophisticated speaker, I have to give him that.

I'm interested in the mental health aspects of this case.  I have personally dealt with a person with 'paranoid schizophrenia' and the crisis of him being off his meds (as a support person to the family and the individual in crisis): it's a really tough challenge for families and in trying to work within the limitations of the mental health system (and that's even here, in Canada).  There's a shortage of hospital beds, when those are needed to help monitor medication responsiveness and stabilization of symptoms and follow-up monitoring of meds is required (outpatient).

I'll have to find the stats, but a person with severe debilitation by mental illness is at significant high risk for becoming victims of crime and I believe in humanitarian responses, aimed at prevention and intervention of mental health crises.  I believe this massacre was preventable and I'm interested in viewing systemic failures re: mental health law, procedure, access to treatment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia. The vast majority of schizophrenics are not violent, and those that receive treatment are not violent. But as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a research psychiatrist, writes in his book, “The Insanity Offense,” about 1 percent of the seriously mentally ill (or about 40,000 individuals) are violent. They account for about half the rampage murders in the United States.”


http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-01-13-arizonalaws13_st_N.htm
Support of the law is there. Questions re: protocols, level of an infomed public re: mental health risks, communication about what to do, how to get help, etc.  Questions as well about access of help for poorer families, etc.




Nearly 50 Percent Of Mental Health Services Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010 
First Posted: 01/11/11 03:26 PM Updated: 01/11/11 04:28 PM 


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/pima-county-mental-health-services_n_807522.html

I have some ground-level experience re: intervening to get help on behalf of  family dealing with a seriously debilitated person by mental illness. Even when the laws support intervention, the other challenge is the hospital beds shortage.  It’s a lot of work, and in the case I was dealing with, we did all the legal measures, here was also working with J of P for “Form One” admittance for evaluation, 24 hour observation, interviewing.  We get him to the ER, but he knows the game, the words not to say. . ., while we know his condition is deteriorating (3rd condition for admittance, “Brian’s law”), so it’s a matter of waiting (on eggshells) till the person’s condition has deteriorated to a point where it is fully clear (and person has lost complete grounding, ’to play the game’) is an immediate risk to safety of self and/or others.  

In our case, this was 3 months, putting much of our own lives aside to handle this crisis and see it through to the intervention that was needed.  All is safe now, no lives lost.  We mobilized as a ‘team’, family and supporters, mediator with outside resources.  We were as prepared as anyone could possibly be, and yet it was a real challenge to work with the system.  I wrote out a report on the person’s behaviour, to help make it clear to the hospital what was going on (I used their own template for assessment re: behaviours, cognition, etc.  The social worker complemented on it‘s professionalism, lol)

Much of the behaviours that are being reported about Loughner, are consistent with my observations of a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.  Including the reports of the ‘stares’ (those are irksome, to be on the receiving end of them, creepy);  the ‘outbursts’; the ‘taking spontaneous flight’; the cognitive impairment (evidenced by the accounts on L’s you tube account); the shrine he made (the schizophrenic I observed got into ’magical thinking’, he felt unsafe and attempted to draw a circle of protection around his place of residence using laundry detergent. . . Paranoia about food poisoning and he trashed all his roommates food. . . Bizarre behaviours, secretive. . .)

I also have ground-level experience of living with a psychologically dangerous man (my dad and I was 10, 1979) who still had his guns.  It ended in fatality (.22 shot himself in the head), but we also lived for years in fear for our own lives, and when he hit the bottle hard (and through the times it looked like he was planning to take us all down with him).  I’ve had time to reflect on those experiences.  It makes me hyper alert to risks.  We were a family in crisis, afraid to reach out, not prepared, got used to the eggshells, but the inevitable did happen.

In my adult years, I volunteered and I got training in Suicide Prevention (Alberta Model) and I did help actively to save lives.  Keep a person alive and safe and to get mental health intervention.  I did this for 10 years in a volunteer-related capacity.  The model makes sense as well for homicidal risks and “access to the means” and in accordance to the “amount and quality of planning details”; predispositions (a presenting mental illness, intoxication, etc.); stressors (sudden loss, a triggering event, etc.).

I wrote a really long post, so I'll have to break it down into two.


----------



## kstart (13 Jan 2011)

Second part of post:

What concerns me about ideological-based inflamed rhetoric is that it appears to stay on the political ideological level vs. the pragmatic level of what needs to be done and what can be learnt from tragedy to initiate changes to prevent such tragedies from recurring.  It tends to be noise, and distracting from the real issues.

Improvement in mental health access and intervention costs the State money and this is aggravating and sometimes an area politicians don’t want to address because of their ideology and base of support (ideology, splitting of ‘us‘ and ‘them‘ and beyond the level of reason).  Do we consider this tragedy to be acceptable “collateral damage” because of the savings to taxpayers and trying to manage a seemingly unmanageable debt?  Which has many people experiencing some levels of panic, I just hate to see the loss of humanitarian values in the midst of it.  

I think we should be willing to acknowledge consequences and people don’t truly exist in a vacuum, that is a myth, IMO, “no man is an island“, there‘s an interplay among many things, a person‘s biology (genetic predispositions, substance abuse interplays); a person‘s relationships; the mobilization of skills and coping; a society’s safety net, etc.

Even if a person speaks with an informed perspective, genuine compassion and concern; the ideological labels come, the games come.  IMO, it makes it a frustrating environment/context to communicate in.

I noticed in Sarah Palin's 8 minute-long Facebook 'rebuttal" (?), but no mention of the mental illness issue, she's choosing to view only the criminal aspect.  This could have been done for political reasons, or a bias, and we all have biases, and how we choose (or unconsciously choose) where and how we focus.  It can also be because the mental illness issue isn't firmly established as fact.   I like Bernard Lonergan's maxim "looking is not knowing" (google terms:  transcentendal method", :The process of conscious knowing and deciding" distinctions between "reflective insight" vs. "pragmatic insight"..."interiority")   It's just interesting to me, addressing the mental health aspect can also be a political hotbed.

I agree with the notions that from tragedy, some learning can occur, some 'look within', 'who am I", 'am I an ideology"; 'what do I value". . .?  Do I care about how my neighbour is doing?


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jan 2011)

With the census population approaching 312,000,000 he is not the only one out there.


----------



## 57Chevy (13 Jan 2011)

Jared Lee Loughner mugshot on wikipedia dated 08 Jan 2011

Facebook photos ?????

Makes you wonder :


----------



## kstart (13 Jan 2011)

Exactly, 57Chevy, earlier photo, "the boy next door".
And yes, statistical probabilities, larger populations.

I had this training: http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/go.aspx?tabid=2

*If we're going to coexist with guns, it makes sense to be vigilant and in acknowledging the risks.*  Training is not that hard to get and it can help save lives, prevent deaths.  In the case of "access to means", with intent, disposition, stressors, in crisis, and those means are a gun, it's a 911 situation.  

This training even helped me support an 'on-line' friend, a US Marine, going through a hell of a time 're-acclimatizing', post-Iraq exposure, while in the wait re: VA, treatment access.  Both him and his wife were at risk.  He had the 'means' (gun); crisis, predisposition (temporal), 'planning, attempts', getting dangerously close.

It was an interesting interaction, me being a Canadian, lefty-orientated (but "experienced" a bit), yet understanding things about PTSD and anger (having it myself :-[).  

The suggestion about maybe placing his guns in safe keeping (since he indicated means, planning, and state of crisis) and I knew the reaction I was going to get, "not until you pry it from my cold dead hands"    

What was positive, very positive however, was his ability to recall "firearms safety protocol" (and a sense of "soldiering up") and we went into that, and it helped snap him out of it-- the training, and we debriefed.  Not much power, online, and at that time I didn't have personal information.  We have had our 'spats", ideological differences though having no place whatsoever to get stuck on.  He forgave me for being Canadian and liking folk music, lol.  (When he was heavy into the heavy metal. . .  )  A good man, I'm glad he survived through the harder stuff and post-Iraq; he's alive and thriving today, loves his wife, they're thriving.  He got an honourable discharge and some interesting new ventures in his life, another door opened for him.

Training costs money, but freebees available usually in exhange for volunteer work.  There are some positive things about some training and protocals even in Canadian licensing re: arms.  It didn't exist back at the time when my family of origin needed it.

Positive outcomes are satisfying.  Others, not so positive are harder to live with, but it feels better when we're equipped with training and know-how and we do our best from there..  

But yes, real human beings, real lives.  It can happen anywhere, with any person, regardless of class, or whatever other distinctions.  If it's not combat-related PTSD, it can be something biochemical happening in a person, the evnironment, triggers, etc.

It's still not known exactly where Loughner's motivations are coming from.  How bad the delusions were, the level of real conscious choosing, despite whatever his words were meaning, or the intent of those.

I have to take breaks from this subject area (I still experience ptsd-rumblings, pre-shaking-- I'm getting better with earlier recognition, before ptsd-overcomes me, know when to stop, ground).  I just wanted to humanize things a bit, as a break from the political-ideological aspects, bound to stir from this tragedy   Have a safe 24/7


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jan 2011)

>Do we consider this tragedy to be acceptable “collateral damage” because of the savings to taxpayers and trying to manage a seemingly unmanageable debt?

It is acceptable collateral damage because of the alternative of unnecessarily infringing rights.  There are a lot of greater preventable and currently tolerated risks to be faced down before the risk of being wounded or killed by a mentally ill person.  Support for the mentally ill for the most part should be compassionate (not calculated economically) and entered into voluntarily, not forced upon them.

Too many academics and commentators have made too much noise in recent years about conservativism and right-leaning political ideologies being symptoms of a mental illness.  That is sufficient reason to keep the door to compulsory treatment and confinement more securely shut than it ever has been, and a lot of people need to walk back from their positions on the matter before they, and therefore government, can be trusted.


----------



## 57Chevy (13 Jan 2011)

kstart said:
			
		

> previous loner.




People tend to be suspicious of those who don't socialize easily - however, some people simply enjoy their own company. If you find pressure to be more social is knocking your confidence, then here are some tips to cope.

How to cope with being a loner

People are always suspicious of someone who appears to be a loner. Sometimes there may well be good reason. Research into serial killings have shown us that the perpetrators are often loners, allowing social pressure and/or mental illness to warp their minds, without having social contacts with whom to share their frustrations. However, there are people who just appreciate their own company and, although not without friends, time alone is a necessary way of getting through life. Here are some ways that loners, who may otherwise consider themselves to be social misfits, can lead a happy and healthy life.

Look after your health

You should pay close attention to your body and how you are feeling, particularly if you live alone. With no-one close to point out that your behaviour or health seems to be out of sync, it is easy for a loner to leave contacting a doctor until the last minute. Make sure that you eat well and get as much exercise as possible - it can be easy to forget to do so with no outside encouragement or pressure. You should take particular care of your mental health. If you are prone to depression, seek medical interventions - with limited opportunities to share your feelings, they can easily get out of hand. Don't be tempted to shut yourself away from everyone and everything.

Be honest with friends and family

People don't always understand that some of us just like to be alone. You may find it annoying or intrusive when people turn up on your doorstep unannounced, or, if you live with your family, enter your private area. Tell them how you feel. Explain that you prefer to be given notice before they come round. Stress that the fact that you like spending time alone does not mean that you don't appreciate them, but that you appreciate them all the more when they are not forced on you. Most importantly, don't push them away because of their attempts to engage you - they are just trying to be helpful and show that they care.

Plan ahead

When happy in one's own company, it is easy to spend far too much time alone, which is not good for mental health, particularly if you live and work alone. Plan ahead so that you have 'dates' - time for meeting with a friend, having lunch with a family member, going to an exercise class. You may not feel like it at the time, but being with other people does give you the opportunity to let off steam; something that is very important for a loner.

Don't be forced into a role with which you are not comfortable

It is so easy for people close to a loner to try to change them. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing - you may discover that, once you have found a close friend or lover, you want to become more sociable a little to make them happy. However, if you find that they are trying to force you to do something that doesn't sit right with you, then make it clear to them that you are not happy. Forcing yourself to do something that feels unnatural will not make you happy in the long run.

Choose your job carefully

If you like your own company, you may find working in a team situation, or being in a job where you have to meet a lot of people, very stressful. Nearly all of us have to work; however, think about what you would be most suited to and take the time to research how to get such a job. We spend a large proportion of our lives working; if you are not happy in your job, it will effect your very existence. However, don't give up on a job you enjoy just because you cannot face a social aspect of it that you don't like - for example, giving presentations. Instead, give it a try, you may just come to like it and it may only be a very small part of a job that you otherwise like.

Remind yourself that you are independent and strong

Sometimes, with society's low opinion of those who are loners, it is easy to become despondent, believing that there is something wrong with you for not wanting to constantly be around other people. Try to focus on the positive side. If you spend a lot of time alone, you are likely to be very independent and strong, able to fend for yourself in most situations. Don't let other people's perceptions of how you should live affect you; you are your own person and are perfectly entitled to live the life of your choosing.

Considering these simple suggestions, a loner should be able to live life to the full, in good health and with the understanding of those around you.

                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## kstart (14 Jan 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Too many academics and commentators have made too much noise in recent years about conservativism and right-leaning political ideologies being symptoms of a mental illness.  That is sufficient reason to keep the door to compulsory treatment and confinement more securely shut than it ever has been, and a lot of people need to walk back from their positions on the matter before they, and therefore government, can be trusted.



I don't think it's as bad or catastrophic as you imagine it to be? 

Good mental health policy includes within it a system of checks and balances to prevent/minimize any abuse.  A system of access to a mental health advocate, ombudsman, an appeal process for decisions; the rights to ask for a second opinion, secondary diagnosis, or decisions re: confinement/hospitalization.  "Least restrictive", least amount of infringement on personal freedon, principle is optimally followed.

Arizona Mental Health Law, at least on the surface resembles our Mental Health Act here.  I agree with you that voluntary and respecting individual choice is always the best course of action and a principle to uphold.

But I do agree with some limitations, and these are last resort measures, but are included in our Mental Health Act as looking similar in part to Arizona Mental Health law.  The three exceptions, where involuntary hospitalization might be necessary: 1) person demonstrates immediate risks to harming oneself (suicide); 2) person demonstrates immediate risk to others (homicide), 3) the person’s condition without treatment is likely to deteriorate significantly (e.g. serious debilitation and impairment affecting the person’s ability to look after themselves).

There’s very specific diagnostic criterion and subsets of diagnostic criterion a person must meet to be considered a significant and immediate risk.  Thoughts alone usually aren’t enough.  There’s no way one’s political beliefs alone would constitute involuntary hospitalization.

Upon comphrehensive assessment of Loughner, I don't think they are going to find that this act, his condition was caused directly by political ideology.  

There's a vast difference between Libertarians and Schizophrenia, that is diagnostically recognizable.

A good book for understanding what a person with untreated schizophrenia experiences, is The  Day The Voices Stopped, by Ken Steele.  Takes one back to the darker ages of mental health care of the 1960s; this guy’s tour in life; the bad meds; the state hospital abuse; homelessness and trying to get by and living along side this very difficult illness.  He proclaimed brand new personal freedom via Resperdone, a newer type of anti-psychotic medication that made a marked improvement in his overall quality of life.  That with some support, some hand-up, they can make it, work towards independent living, hold jobs, etc.


----------



## Bass ackwards (14 Jan 2011)

This sudden focusing on loners is starting to become disconcerting (since I lean that way myself). Michael Ignatieff, the other day, talking about the need for strict gun control stated:

_"There are a lot of loners in this society. There are a lot of lonely people and sometimes those people may get over the edge and we have to have the mental health services that make sure that nobody gets so far out there that they think they can solve a problem with a gun."_

I can think of a lot of special interest  indentifiable groups out there that no one would _dare_ make a statement like that about. Even the article that 57Chevy posted deals with how to "cope" with being a loner.
Since when did that become a disability that needs to be coped with ? I always thought it was just a personality trait.


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Jan 2011)

kstart said:
			
		

> The three exceptions........... 2) person demonstrates immediate risk to others (homicide).



Does that include violence/acting violently toward others causing harm ?  Or does that person demonstrate being a risk only after the homicide.
Because if violence demonstrates an immediate risk, then there are alot of not too sane people out there.


(The loner madman tangent because psycho-analysts seem to point the finger.........OMG.....he's a loner!!!!! )

As a result, A loner or persons living alone seem to be victimized as soon as a madman goes out
on a homicidal spree, check out these statistics in the USA:
link--->Persons Living Alone, by Sex and Age, 1990–2006
I think the Canadian statistics would read to be about the same rate.
Are they all insane ?
I think not.


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Jan 2011)

Bass ackwards,
                         I posted that because I'm a widow and I live alone. ;D
    I always thought it was just a personality trait also.


----------



## kstart (15 Jan 2011)

_57Chevy, Bass ackwards_,

No being a loner does not mean a person is mentally ill nor in a mental health crisis. 

It’s about assessing changes in behaviours.  There’s a whole series of mental health assessment modules that are used e.g. intake assessment at a psychiatric emergency.

And it’s to screen for risk to self, others, levels of deterioration and presence of possible mental health disorders.


Although there can be laws that order a psychiatric assessment, it doesn't mean that's a guarantee that a person will be hospitalized, nor in need of hospitalization, when an outpatient alternative is available and the person is not in imminent risk of harming self, others, or suffering a severe mental illness (like schizophrenia, and going by the severity of delusions, positive, negative symptoms).  It’s just an assessment, done by a professional.  

A person with schizophrenia though *can withdraw * from others in reaction to the contents of the “voices” they are experiencing, making it extra stressful for them to be around others.  There are themes to the voices, “commanding ones”: “Buy a gun”, “Kill yourself”, “End it now“; or “commenting voices”, “you’re a loser”; “they’re laughing at you”; “they’re plotting against you”.   Sometimes there are false beliefs in being able to hear voices coming from other people’s minds, and this delusion can create further aggravation and reactions.  A small percentage react violently, others might *withdraw/isolate more* to cope with it.   Substance abuse, e.g. alcohol can really aggravate and amplify symptoms and aggression.

Thought distortions:  Receiving messages from the radio, as specifically addressed personally to the person, as a code or set of instructions (ego) meant personally for that person to follow, or hearing the radio from a toaster (when it’s not conducting radio waves  ).  “The government is trying to control my mind”, which abstractly can be real, re: deliberate propaganda, e.g. repetitive phrasing, ideological, but for a person suffering with schizophrenia, it can feed a real panic and they can’t come down off of it.

Hallucinations, perceptual distortions, delusions, a common delusion is-- messiah, anti-Christ, the whole world is depending on them, and voices chanting “do it“.  It’s a state of regular distractibility, difficulty concentrating as a result, more energy to try to concentrate (which may be another reason for withdrawal, isolation).

Cognitive impairment: inability to complete a thought, fragmented sentences; “flight of ideas”, loosely connected thoughts, problems of reference (taking things out of context)-- listening to a person with psychosis/schizophrenia, it’s not one instance or another, it’s frequent lapses, apparent confusion.

It’s believed to be a organic brain disorder, it shows up on brain scans, the affected regions of the brain.  There can be a ‘triggering event’ which starts it in motion, substance abuse, a traumatic loss, unhealthy work-life balance, various stressors, can set it off and also cause relapses of symptoms (even when on medications).  

It’s a really tough one for families to cope with, or to know or understand what is happening to their loved one.  There’s also shame, denial, etc. that can be occurring.  The person with schizophrenia may know something’s not right, but choose to be more secretive about it.  Or they may not realize there is a problem, and just slide into decline as the symptoms worsen, become more intense.

Hospitalization is better for stabilization vs. outpatient, for one the amount of distraction and inner noise, can in itself make it difficult for them to keep appointments when not medically stabilized and the symptoms are severe.  For another, meds are a main treatment option to help stabilize and  the hospital setting allows for a better space to assess effectiveness of meds (doctors, nurses, can keep notes, on progress, respond to any problems, or about side effects-- if side effects are bad, they may switch to another medication).  Gives the families a chance as well to learn and be brought up to speed and some break from the crisis and stirring of late.  PTSD can happen in families coping with a person with severe schizophrenia, because there can also be constant crisis-responding, on eggshells, etc.  Not fun times.


----------



## kstart (15 Jan 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> This sudden focusing on loners is starting to become disconcerting (since I lean that way myself). Michael Ignatieff, the other day, talking about the need for strict gun control stated:
> 
> _"There are a lot of loners in this society. There are a lot of lonely people and sometimes those people may get over the edge and we have to have the mental health services that make sure that nobody gets so far out there that they think they can solve a problem with a gun."_
> 
> ...



Well that's interesting how "loner" has entered the discourse as a catch phrase.  

As per guns, Canadian legistlation:
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm#e
http://www.firearmstraining.ca/exam.htm

This is interesting:
http://www.proexams.com/files/921_e.pdf
Section F requires a reference person (so, you can't be a total loner).  Earlier in the form, questions about spousal relationship and past spouses.

I can't be that objective about the gun debate (domestic survivor).  I would wish for solid protocols to help others recognize if their buddy could be in trouble.  My dad's hunting buddy gave back the gun, but did that too early IMO, because he needed treatment first, but wouldn't go.  It ended badly, and the wife and us young kids, there were too many times, it was dangerous for us as well.  He was disturbed and had been contemplating taken us all out with him, there were several occasions.  Children don't have much power in those situations, but got good at deflecting tensions, hiding , etc.


----------



## 57Chevy (15 Jan 2011)

kstart
I can understand the "total loner' scenario as being detriment to ones' mental health.
My understanding of lonliness is that it is simply a state of mind.
I do many things all by my lonesome, and so do many people.
Check out this article entitled Loneliness Is A State Of Mind 
I think you will find it quite interesting.
                   _______________________________________________________________

Funerals bring closure after Arizona shooting that rocked U.S

A week filled with shock, mourning and a call to unity by President Barack Obama drew to a close as a federal judge killed in the Arizona shooting rampage was laid to rest Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Roll was remembered at a service at the same church in Tucson where a day earlier a funeral was held for the youngest victim, 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. They were among the six people killed and 13 injured last Saturday. U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords remains hospitalized.
Keith Benavides of Albuquerque, N.M., a chaplain for firefighters and a member of International Fellowship of Chaplains, said, "We're here for spiritual support and comfort. We offer prayers, but mostly we just listen. ... People need to get their emotions out."
                               (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2011)

There is no closure for some people, as mentally unbalanced people are still being influenced by extremeist rhetoric:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/theres-more-evidence-that-the-liberal-media-influenced-eric-fuller-than-there-is-that-palin-influenced-jared-loughner/



> *There’s more evidence that the liberal media influenced Eric Fuller than there is that Palin influenced Jared Loughner*
> By Jim Treacher	 | Published: 9:33 AM 01/16/2011	 | Updated: 1:07 PM 01/16/2011
> 
> Which is to say, there actually is some evidence.
> ...


----------



## kstart (16 Jan 2011)

> There is no closure for some people, as mentally unbalanced people are still being influenced by extremeist rhetoric:
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/16/theres-more-evidence-that-the-liberal-media-influenced-eric-fuller-than-there-is-that-palin-influenced-jared-loughner/



I agree this is not responsible and is hypocritical and flame feeding as well and again, it is deflecting from honest debate.  Aparently, not everyone is in agreement on holding back from that type of discourse, and so the ideological, divisive-rhetoric wars continue. 

We don't know what the results will be of the forensic investigations, forensic pscyhiatric assessments.  

I've gone with a hypothesis of 'paranoid schizophrenic', and somewhat deliberately to cool some tensions, both sides of it.  I think it's still the most probable direct causation, given other reports of his behaviours.  It's what we "do" with ideas, how we are engaged with them and how we decide to act from them (either by just considering them, or being motivated to take action using the tools of democracy, petitioning, etc., but killing over it. . .ill).  A person with psychosis, but not with a full case of schizophrenia, can easily be influenced by uncritical evaluation of ideas, hate speech, it's good to try to step back and be a responsible listener, have other constraints guiding our actions, ideally to be more responsible in both our speech acts, and other actions as well. 

There's a lot going on though by the circus surrounding this case.  A lot of things appear to be broken.  I'm of the generation and class (no private school) who did not receive a good solid foundation in Liberal education (teaching about democracy, good citizenship, a shared understanding and value, a foundation)-- it seems this is also a part that is broken in our democracy, where people are having a hard time getting on the same page, and more division as a result?  I've only really just begun to self-educate more in those areas, but I have some foundations from which I can adapt and continue to learn.  

To support free-will, education is one part of that equation, mental health, stability in comunities and families I think is another important foundation.

And then there are the economics, how can these things be supported now? I feel that stress, I'm poor (as a result of disability), my family is poor, aging, and working poor, when wages are so low, credit sometimes just to meet basic needs and that's a bad direction, so we're pulling together are meagre resources to pull though, live as cheaply as possible.  Economic stresses are a big factor, can be a destablizing factor at the individual levels as well, but we are informed and aware and keeping grounded.  On a macro-level, the concerns I hear expressed Stateside, the tragedy of so many people losing their homes, the despair of that while very little hope for many in getting out and free from that trap.  The basic standard of living has really declined.  One family member, his employment choice, the expectation of wages while investing in education, to be so sorely disappointed, all that education for minimum wage, less hope for paying back those debts, let alone getting enough stability from poverty and month-tomonth survival, a small step away from homelessness (even as renters, as costs of living continue to escalate and wages don't keep up with it).

Socialism is feared, and yet the move to Keynsian solutions was sought to ameliorate conditions, post 1930's depression, but in this case, the debt is so enormously high.

But a select few have become enormously wealthy (e.g. the crooks on  Wall Street, the robbing of perpetrated among CEOs, no honour of a contract to employees, nor to government, nor country).  New generation, it's a long fight to get out of poverty, post-education expenses; higher costs of living.  Older generations benefitted and prospered from a healthier economic situation, but no loyalty to country either nor for fellow citizens of an economically displaced generation.

I don't know what the resolutions are, there's a very sad loss of sovereignty as a result of foreign power loans.  I can understand feeling stirred by an apparent value and priority of investment in a police state. . . I think I would feel irked as well.

From a poverty perspective, I feel the stress, yet my morals and values keep me in check, and they're still in line with the older dream, stay honest anyway (even though that doesn't pay, and I have many times misplaced my faith in the 'system', or the 'dream', American Dream/Canadian Dream, hard work=proprotionate benefits. . . and I just broke down eventually, and those delusions shattered.  Systemic repeated violations of the social contract we had been taught to expect. . . and trying to recover (other reasons for breakdown/ptsd) and find a new way through, adapting to changes in both in my self and in terms of opportunities).  At least I remember when I experience hopelessness, to hang on to faith, and try to trust myself that I will find a way through, regardless of external circumstances).

But what I'm seeing of the rise of hate, does disturb my soul.  More people are experiencing financial crisis, basic needs, sometimes the anger is displaced, and some can search for meaning and identification among groups perhaps 'less healthy"?  It's nervous, what happens with rising unemployment stability, lack of hope.  Somethings of the system that worked before, aren't working so well now.  Places of strengths have gradually been eroded, absorbed by progressive greed, and short-sighted, short-term profit for the few, while stolen from the people.

The hate rhetoric though I don't believe is constructive (though others in those groups may think that it is, there has to be other resolutions sought, before violent revolutions-- on the other hand there is disprortionate allocation of 'wealth' (which can also be an illusion, as is the system-- which I think Loughner was suggesting. . .maybe neo-libertarian. . .? )  Also these hate groups, when other non-violent courses of action using democracy as a tool for the greater good, and there are constitutional rights which still do belong to everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, etc. . .  .

I may be poor, suffer a debilitating illness (though there is hope to overcome and get back on my feet), but I won't let the external determine my internal and there are ways to become involved and engaged in democratic processes, and to learn, and to work together on common problems and challenges now and anticipated in the future.  And I already know from those previous experiences of being an actively engaged citizen, that disappointment is also a fact, but not a reason to stop as there's always things to learn, and ways to get better at it, and staying peaceful.  Be a child, continue to hope, but try to gain wisdom.  I really liked Obama's speech all the same.  We can still use the tools of democracy, with citizen action and enough people on the same page to stand up for what is right and fair, and for the health of our country.  It's not being accomplishd though by staying stuck in ideological based retoric, tip for tat, where's that going?  It's just circular, not meaningful dialectics towards change.


----------



## kstart (16 Jan 2011)

BTW, 57Chevy, good stuff re: coping with being a loner-- yes, I am one and I can be too comfortable being one.  I accepted company yesterday (for better or for worse : ), but yes, some very good practical tips.  Knowledge, recognition of wisdom and the self-discpline to work at it and apply it sensibly is power, and empowering.  I have to make some changes.

I've been reflecting generally on the subjects of Liberty, libertarians (and both 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' perspectives within).  Some things are broken in the system.  There's been a focus on 2nd Ammendment rights, but there's a lot of other areas that are broken, that aren't getting the attention they deserve.  

Mental health help, should fit into libertarian principles because it is assisting in free-will (freedom from the constraints of mental health impairments from interfering with apprehension of a truly freed-will, thoughtful, healthy-balanced mind).  I think it's just as important as Education, and in particular, some Liberal Education, understanding and knowing the foundations and intentions of democratic society and from the perspective of the good of the people, as it was intended to be.

But I reflected on that in my earlier post.  I feel really bad for what the States are going through, I worry about things here as well.  

I someitmes wonder about the politics and focus re: right to gun ownership vs. neglecting other important and supportive areas to support the health of democracy and it's people.  I think it's been co-opted, possibly deviously as a distractor.  It just seems like it's a lot of 'identity-politics', mobilize others through anger and sense of victimization, while ignoring or underplaying other serious issues, and agendas occurring.  It's almost cynically practiced, this is how we get that vote. . . while still being a part of that system, still many potentials for criminal actions among the most powerful. . . It looks like just a game and many people from whichever side are playing it-- well, that's what it is anyway, through the "People" a few bones, while others make off with millions. . .who are not really loyal to the State, to the Country.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2011)

More blowback. "Progressives" discover words words really do have meaning and consequences:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2011/01/msnbc-libtalker-mark-levin-duke-it-out.html



> *IT'S WAR*
> MSNBC Libtalker, Levin Exchange Fire Over Suit Threat
> 
> Of all the "progressive" dishonesty over the past week, the idea that conservative figures such as Sarah Palin have self-servingly inserted themselves into the debate is the sleaziest. Lefties blamed Palin for the Tucson shootings almost immediately, instantly placing her a defensive position.
> ...


----------



## Danke (17 Jan 2011)

Putting "progressives" in quotations is the silliest passive-aggressive insult I've seen. Give people a snarky label, and you can discount their opinions without discussing them. Also: Socialist, fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, etc.


----------



## 57Chevy (17 Jan 2011)

This is far from politics 


MAP: A Guide To Recent Vandal Attacks On Democrats (UPDATED)

Smashed windows. Threats of violence. A slashed gas line. Reports of vandalism and threats against Democrats have been stacking up over the past few days. 

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today estimated that 10 members had been threatened over the health care vote.

So just how bad is it out there?

We decided to make a map of all the instances of vandalism and serious threats against Democrats. Check it out.......
At the link 
                      ____________________________________________________________-
Photos:
From the article....dated March 24, 2010
Palin Uses Crosshairs To Identify Dems Who Voted For Health Care Reform

                           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2011)

Danke said:
			
		

> Putting "progressives" in quotations is the silliest passive-aggressive insult I've seen. Give people a snarky label, and you can discount their opinions without discussing them. Also: Socialist, fascist, communist, liberal, right-wing, etc.



Actually, we *are* discussing them. Their self proclaimed label is "progressive", although the evidence really points to their words and actions as being awesomely stupid. Now their narrative in this case has been exposed as a lie, they are reaping the consequences.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Actually, we *are* discussing them. Their self proclaimed label is "progressive", although the evidence really points to their words and actions as being awesomely stupid. Now their narrative in this case has been exposed as a lie, they are reaping the consequences.



This may shock you, but those "progressives" think the words and actions of conservatives are "awesomely stupid".

Trying to point fingers from one camp to another is ridiculous.  First watching one side try to walk back on its rhetorical devices (like the hilarious "surveyor's transit" defence") and now playing "tu quoque" is not helping any sort of realistic discussion on the degree to which the state of civil discourse has decayed in the United States.  Who said what doesn't really matter as much as that while anyone is free to say what they want, words matter and with that right of free speech comes responsibility.  And that applies to all.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2011)

Fail again.

It is the Progressives who first came out attempting to pin blame for the shooting on the conservative/TEA party movement and the GOP, and now the same Progressives who are trying to hide/deny/bury what they said earlier while attempting to claim a moral equivalency with the political right.

As for corrosive political discourse, there are plenty of examples going back to the founding of the American Republic, with particularly heated periods during the War of 1812, American Civil War, the 1920's when there was a great push to impose Socialism on the United States (look up the "Wobbly" movement, for example), the Great Depression, the 1960's and throughout the Administration of President George W Bush. 

If the Sherrif had been silent and done his job of investigating the shooting, rather than speculating on the cause (with no evidence whatsoever), and the media had not run with this, attempting to smear figures from the conservative and TEA party movement, then this would be treated as the tragedy that it is, and not a huge political dustup. Of course, having created this rucus, they will be the ones wearing the consequences, not the people they attempted to smear.


----------



## mariomike (18 Jan 2011)

MSNBC
Details and timeline on the medical response.:
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/15/5843330-the-emergency-response-in-tucson-timeline-shows-ambulance-delays


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2011)

"Civility" apparently only flows in one direction:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/387145



> PETER WEHNER: A CIVILITY TEST FOR LIBERALS:
> 
> A week after President Obama’s stirring remarks at the Tucson memorial service comes an important Civility Test for liberals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (20 Jan 2011)

Several people have already condemned Cohen's remarks.  And he has refused to apologize for them or retract them, because at the end of the day, they are in fact an apt, if perhaps not totally tasteful, description of exactly what the GOP has done in the debate on healthcare.  To anyone with a shred of intellect, he did not in fact compare any person to Nazis - but he did compare the propaganda techniques being employed by the GOP to those used very successfully by that despicable group.  And why?  Because it's correct.  Create a lie, make it big, and repeat it until people accept it as the truth.  Why do you think the GOP is consistently referring to their idiiot repeal bill by the name they chose for it, "Repealing The Job Killing Health Care Law Act"?  They want their unthinking followers to simply accept that it is job killling (and unaffordable) despite all the evidence to the contrary.  They are, in fact, using those very same tactics, and if some Democratic lawmaker is going to call them on it (just like Alan Grayson did during the original debates), then fine.  It's called "fair comment".

The great think of it is that they've just taken the House, already shown they're out of touch with "The American People" who several polls show do not want healthcare reform repealed.  They've missed the message, wasted the people's time on a bill that will not even be debated or voted on in the Senate (where it would fail).  I think this is pretty much a textbook pyrrhic victory.

In better news on the subject, apparently Rep Giffords has stood up with assistance and will soon be going into rehab, making substantial progress.  And organs donated by the young victim have saved the life of one child and the sight of another so far.  Most shockingly, even DICK CHENEY is talking about gun control (specifically high capacity magazines), which is almost unbelievable.  Good can come from tragedy, it seems.


----------



## GAP (20 Jan 2011)

> Most shockingly, even DICK CHENEY is talking about gun control (specifically high capacity magazines), which is almost unbelievable.  Good can come from tragedy, it seems.



The criminally intent and the wackos will still get and use guns, whether they are banned, restricted, locked up, etc.. And if they can't get immediate access to a gun, they'll use a knife, baseball bat, vehicle, whatever. A lot of these changes are nothing more than feelgood stuff....


----------



## Redeye (20 Jan 2011)

I used to run with that argument.  However, I'm going to say I don't anymore.

I have to wonder how a deranged loner would have gotten his hands on a firearm if there was any sort of screening process he had to go through.  I suspect it would have at the very least been a lot harder and that may have been a deterrent if not a complete showstopper.

A knife, bat, vehicle would have made it a lot hard to to kill 6 people and wound 20 at once as well.  A 33 round pistol magazine made it relatively easy.  I can think of no legitimate reason to own one.  The fact that a bystander was able to disarm him when he finally went to change mags made me rethink my "magazine sizes are irrelevant" argument as well.

I'm not suggesting that all firearms should be banned - I'm a gun owner and a recreational shooter.  I just don't see a problem with reasonable controls on what has the potential to create very tragic situations.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> The criminally intent and the wackos will still get and use guns, whether they are banned, restricted, locked up, etc.. And if they can't get immediate access to a gun, they'll use a knife, baseball bat, vehicle, whatever. A lot of these changes are nothing more than feelgood stuff....


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2011)

There are a lot of questions to ask about how effective "screening" is, since the shooter apparently had dealing s with law enforcement before, and was under 21 years of age when he and his friends were out in the desert shooting with that firearm; both negative indicators for owning a handgun in the United States (handgun ownership is restricted to people age 21 and older).

This is very much similar to the impaired nature of the debate here in Canada; handguns have been highly restricted since the 1930's, yet are still used to commit crimes and the call is for still more regulation/restriction despite the fact handguns have been tightly restricted for 80 years. We also see how Mayor Miller's banning of gun clubs and harassment of legitimate gun owners in Toronto have worked to reduce gun crime (i.e. not at all), so the empirical evidence is that restriction and regulation is of very limited value. 

An interesting piece of evidence in the opposite direction is Switzerland, where all male citizens must have an automatic weapon and 200 rounds of ammunition at home _by law_; yet gun crime is so rare that the few instances create shockwaves among the citizens of Switzerland.


----------



## Redeye (20 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting piece of evidence in the opposite direction is Switzerland, where all male citizens must have an automatic weapon and 200 rounds of ammunition at home _by law_; yet gun crime is so rare that the few instances create shockwaves among the citizens of Switzerland.



Actually, that's patently false.  While all members of the Swiss military (which is virtually every adult male) keep their issued service rifle at home, possession of ammunition for them is illegal.  Until recently, they were issued a sealed box of 50 rounds which had to be presented for inspection on request.  This has been discontinued.  To fire their service rifle, they could go do any range (and it's interesting that they don't bother casing their rifles, when I was there I was walking through a train station along side a guy coming home from a weekend ex in civvies with his SIG 550 slung over his shoulder), but they must purchase ammunition (other than what they get issued annually to qualify) and use it at the range.

The more guns = less crime argument is silly.  You are 4.5x more likely, according to the most recent stats I read, to be killed by a firearm in the United States than in Canada.  Gun proliferation is the most logical explanation.

As for Miller in Toronto, yes, I agree with you that his anti-gun efforts were symbolic and stupid.  However, I don't think that your claim about restriction/regulation holds, given that a large number of the handguns used in crimes appear to be smuggled or stolen from legitimate owners.  I can only think of one recent high profile shooting where a licensed gun owner killed someone (other than a domestic dispute) with a legal gun, the shooting of John O'Keefe in Toronto by Edward Paredes - a fine example of why Glocks and bars don't mix.

(edited to fix two spelling mistakes that were annoying me)


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2011)

This page is in danger of descending into either:

Deconstructing "Progressive" thought; or

The Great Gun Control Debate.

Relatively "free" gun ownership - which includes idiots and the criminally insane being armed - is not going away in the USA, nor is it likely to appear in Canada.

"Progressive" and "stupid" are, like truth and beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

I am pleased to hear that the congresswoman is on the road to recovery; we can only wish the best for her and her family. Equally we can only offer condolences, not explanations, to the families f those killed and wounded. This is not an important or even significant political event  it is a small, all too human tragedy which is totally devoid of any greater "meaning."


Edit:
My apologies for the wonky url formatting; I have coreceted it again and again in the word processor (Open Office 3.2) but is still comes out wrong.

With a little help from my friends, as Prime Minister Harper might say sing - specifically from Journeyman, I fixed the wonky links. Thanks to 57Chevy, too. The formatting was correct in Open Office Writer but for some reason I do not (nor care to) understand it got corrupted in the copy/paste process. But since I use Open Office rather than MS _whatever_ I cannot blame everything on Bill Gates.


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Jan 2011)

E.R. (in your post)
       After, quote "The Great Gun Control Debate." add the following to close the new url ----> [/url]
without any spacing....it should work.
better still..... ;D
The Great Gun Control Debate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This page is in danger of descending into either:
> 
> Deconstructing "Progressive" thought[url=http://; or
> 
> ...



No amount of registration or rules will stop a determined crackpot\ criminal from securing what they want to do the deed. Not unless you outlaw every drill press, lathe and mill in the country. Registration, regulation and prohibition is a straw man to detract from the fact that the authorities allowed this loon to run around. That is the boiled down crux of the problem, not gun, ammo or accessory control. People control is the problem.

Now:

Edward is right. If you want to argue gun control go to the right thread. This isn't it. 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Jan 2011)

Giffords' family search for rehabilitation facility

Family and friends of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords have searched the country for the ideal convalescent facility as the congresswoman nears her transition from recovery to rehabilitation 11 days after being shot through the head.

"They have been looking all across the nation at rehab facilities that are best equipped ... for the type of injuries she has," Giffords spokesman Mark Kimble said, though he declined to confirm a CNN report that she would be transferred to a Texas facility on Friday.

Giffords remains in serious condition at Tucson's University Medical Center. Her neurosurgeon has deemed her recovery thus far "miraculous."

Dr. Michael Lemole, who operated on Giffords the day of the shooting, said Monday that her transfer from the hospital to rehabilitation will be the lawmaker's next milestone.

"That's her graduation," Lemole said.

article continues at link.....

Photo:
U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is pictured with her husband NASA Astronaut Mark Kelly in this November 2007 photograph from their wedding made available by the office of Rep. Giffords for Reuters on January 12, 2011. 

Credit: Reuters/U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' office/Handout

                              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Redeye (21 Jan 2011)

Her progress is amazing, apparently.  They've been using an iPad to see how her motor skills and cognitive function are, apparently she has been demonstrating far more than they would have ever expected.  That is the wonder of the whole thing.  She has a long road ahead, but it seems like there's a lot of good happening for her, and that trumps any politics.  It remains to be seen if she'll be able to return to work, but one never knows.



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Giffords' family search for rehabilitation facility
> 
> Family and friends of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords have searched the country for the ideal convalescent facility as the congresswoman nears her transition from recovery to rehabilitation 11 days after being shot through the head.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (21 Jan 2011)

Giffords arriving in Houston 
Follow Congresswoman's journey to rehab hospital here
http://www.chron.com/

2nd Life Flight helicopter lands at Memorial Hermann
http://blogs.chron.com/newswatch/


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2011)

Good news just in.

Congresswoman Giffords just showed up on the House floor this evening.

Not sure if she cast a vote on the Debt Ceiling bill, but was definitely a major milestone in her recovery. 

UPDATE:

She was present to cast a vote in support of the Debt Ceiling increase

Final count was 269 to 161.


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Sep 2012)

A very nice video. 

She's quite the patriot.


Gabrielle Gabby Giffords DNC Pledge of Allegiance Democratic National Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxUY-3qDa9I


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Jan 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This page is in danger of descending into either:
> 
> Deconstructing "Progressive" thought; or
> 
> The Great Gun Control Debate.



 :nod: and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Gabrielle Giffords has put the National Rifle Association squarely in her sights as she unveiled a major initiative for tougher gun laws. 

Shot politician Gabrielle Giffords takes on US gun lobby
09 Jan 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/shot-politician-gabrielle-giffords-takes-on-us-gun-lobby/story-e6frg6so-1226550025295


----------



## 57Chevy (8 Jan 2013)

The USA is the most heavily armed society in the world. 
Even with the best intentions of ex-congresswoman Giffords and her group,
I cannot see it making any real improvements in reducing gun crimes in America.
It's just too late in the making, and there are just too many guns.

I admire her a great deal for her courage and determination to bring the issue into the mindset
of responsible US gun owners and she is probably the best candidate to do so.


----------

