Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

Recent posts

about

Brief and Scattered Thoughts From Tucson (Jesse Schaefer)

  Courbet

As reports came in over the course of yesterday, I was struck by how quickly the mind seems to want to clean and polish and wherever possible use prefab mental structures to house a fresh crisis.  Many friends used the killings to engage in the tired game of bashing the imbecile Palin again, or to express anger at the hysterical conservative rhetoric that pervaded the most recent election.  The killer was obviously spawned from these forces it seemed to many (and I too understand that temptation).  But as we learned more about the killer it seemed to me that this Manichean reversion to political formula and the usual suspects, was at best a subject change, though perhaps therapeutically motivated from shock, or at worst a haymaking strategy with little substance, eclipsing the true tragedy at hand.

 

My mind began to wander to other civic horrors.  The first political memory I have is sitting in the living room of my childhood Richmond District flat and being told by my parents that "a very bad man" had murdered Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk.  Immediately the juxtaposition showed a profound difference, as I reflected on the bitter and depressed, but rational Dan White and the surfacing psychotic youtube and myspace entries of Jared Lee Loughner.  No, Loughner was cut from a different bolt of cloth and this was going to be frustrating to accept.  There is still talk of an accomplice and perhaps it will turn out that some raging wingnut with elephant and teabag tattoos svengalied a very disturbed young man, but it seems unlikely to me.  At the moment we're left with the truly senseless act: paranoid violence borne from a brain on failure mode, the side effect of an organic aberration rather than the true evil we crave it to be.

Posted in

26 responses to “Brief and Scattered Thoughts From Tucson (Jesse Schaefer)”

  1. Sujatha

    The degree of culpability of the accused shooter aside, it would be ideal if the media as a whole reexamines the push towards Shock-jockism in its midst. If one is to go by what Mark Potok says in his Countdown <ahref=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40982787″>interview, this is a debate that must be had.
    The more sunshine is shone on these dark corners, the more the cockroaches will run out. (Sorry cockroaches, I apologize for the comparison to the Limbaughs, Becks and Palins, and their cheerleaders in the media).
    Jared Lee Loughner isn’t being garlanded with roses. But maybe there’s a host of secret admirers who are edifying his attack in private, or alternately, ruing the fact that Giffords may still pull through.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Sujatha

    Link to interview (Didn’t come through in the earlier comment):
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40982787

    Like

    Reply
  3. Ruchira

    I kind of agree with Sujatha’s comment which I just saw. Earlier I wrote the following on Jesse’s Facebook where he has linked the post.

    My take on this is not so much whether Jared Loughner himself was politically motivated or obeying his inner demons. But how many otherwise sane but angry voters will see this as political vindication? If our political commentary by pundits and politicians is more restrained (no mention of “second amendment remedies”, no drawing of cross-hairs on political “targets”) and not given to lethal rhetoric, we would not be wondering whether a lone nut case was, or was not, inspired by politics. The mainstream political conversation from the right is now so deranged and hate filled, it is hard to tell a psychopathic act from a politically motivated murder.

    Like

    Reply
  4. narayan

    BANGALORE VIGNETTE
    The house is in an uproar. “What’s the matter now, Akka?”, I ask my sister. She is resigned to the daily rants of her husband. “Ennamo! EVERY day is something”, she says and heads off to make breakfast. “Chee, chee, chee – dirrrty!”, my niece chimes in. Brother-in-law is shouting now, loud enough to alarm the neighbors. “That bastard Mani! Somebody should shoot that wretched animal of his! There are laws! Public nuisance! Bastards! Dirrrty people!” He is furiously dialing his buddy, the police superintendent. Looking out the window I see Flossie snacking at the rubbish tip, swishing her tail, shaking her head, her ears wiggling like propellers to fend off the buzzing flies. Not that she doesn’t get fed at home, mind you, but she likes a bit on the side after the daily milking when Mr. Mani’s gardener lets her out of the yard to wander the streets. My niece explains : “Just now only, coming from tennis, Appa was getting out of the car and simply he stepped into it. Brand new Nikes. Last week only he got from Singapore. Thoo – all dirty now.”
    A visitor from America, I am the only voice of reason in the house. B-i-l, big shot retired from government service, is irrational as ever. With all the other cows wandering all over the land, I ask you – how can he be sure it’s Flossie’s?
    Moral : If the foo shits, wear it! :-)

    Like

    Reply
  5. prasad

    Thank you. This guy isn’t anything like the abortion-doctor killer, or the Unabomber or 9/11 people – there simply isn’t significant evidence in the guy’s youtube videos of capacity for rational thought, much less of even moderate entanglement with reality.
    One of his videos ends with “In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications; The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver! No! I won’t trust in God!” Channeling Michael Moore, I want to ask why we aren’t blaming Dawkins for Tucson.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Ruchira

    I forgot to say, “Welcome to the front page of Accidental Blogger, Jesse. Too bad it took a tragic event in your town for you to pipe up. A timely debut. Thanks.”

    Like

    Reply
  7. Sujatha

    Sheriff Dupnik : “political fornickaboobery” (in another context regarding the crackdown on suspected illegal immigrants in Arizona). Could we apply this term to a good deal of the media spin that we are seeing in the aftermath of the shooting?
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sheriff-dupniks-criticism-of-p.html?nav=rss_email/components

    Like

    Reply
  8. Ruchira

    Prasad, neither the killer of Dr. Tiller nor the Una-bomber were exactly sane. The private anger and paranoia of both have been reported by their family members. The Una-bomber was actually a true “lone” lunatic. He heard only his own voice. The same cannot be said about Scott Roeder who killed the doctor in Kansas. His personal rage was fueled to a large extent by outsiders like Bill O’Reilly (“baby killer”) and websites such as this. There are sane people who know how to commit a finger-print-free crime by using inflammatory rhetoric. Sooner or later, a deranged person will follow the path where they are pointing. The recruiters for Al Qaida and other terrorist groups know this human psychology too well. It is a bit more troublesome when main stream commentators and politicians use the same tactic.

    Like

    Reply
  9. John Ballard

    I’m one tired and disgusted old Liberal who has had it up to my neck with being polite at times like this. A year or two ago I would have responded more gently but relentless diatribes from the Right Wing noise machines have caused me to form moral callouses. It’s no accident that the loudly advertised GOP gesture to repeal the entire health care bill, derisively labeled “Obamacare”, had to be called off. Although everyone knew it was going nowhere, carrying through with such a symbolic slap in the face would have been beyond tacky in the aftermath of what happened in Arizona.
    Rather than rant, I refer readers and commenters to two excellent posts by Peter Daou.
    ►Eliminationism: how hate breeds violence http://bit.ly/eA1CaA
    ►Gabrielle Giffords and the rightwing hate machine (on the bogus equivalency between right/left extremism) http://bit.ly/i8SuzI
    And for added emphasis, here’s another link from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
    ►http://bit.ly/dNXM8o

    Like

    Reply
  10. Elatia Harris

    Welcome, Jesse — it’s good to see you here at one of the Internet’s best haunts. Alas, you are not writing about art but about life; art will come.
    I agree with you this very sick youth is not a right wing operative. Only a malcontent who could get juiced up by any old rhetoric, and someone with the kind of authority issues that make those who hold public office obvious targets. Sarah Palin is not smart enough to canalize the demons of a young man like this, but the people who run her are. Maybe they can’t make sane people sick — unless with disgust — but they can use people who are already sick. The excesses of Palin’s speechmaking, the potential there for rallying sick puppies, have been pointed out since the 2008 campaign. While the right turn made, since then, by some sane people could have been rationally inspired by her, she’s not blameless for being the MILF who heats up the disturbed, too. Indeed, it’s a big part of her use to the far right. She’s the attitude-laden truck-stop waitress of their dreams, informed with Red State Feminism and the spirit of Hitler — they’d be fools not to use her.

    Like

    Reply
  11. prasad

    Ruchira,
    I want to distinguish the extremist nutbag from the crazy person. It’s probably a continuum, but I think it’s fair to say for example that the killers of Lincoln/Gandhi/King were extremist nuts. The one who offed RFK or the guy who tried to kill Reagan were just crazy. This guy, going by his words, is crazy/i> in ways the abortion doctor fellow or the Unabomber or bin Laden aren’t. What I want to buy from the extreme/crazy distinction is roughly that you can hold someone accountable (in part) for their impact upon the extreme. You can’t cleanly blame them for what the crazy do. Don’t want to hold Quentin Tarantino responsible for the Jodie Foster dude, for example.
    Re impact on extremists, I think it’s fair to say those whose views might support extremism have a responsibility to refudiate violence. So, you can say abortion is murder (or meat is murder) without supporting the killing of abortion doctors (ecoterrorists) but you’ve probably got to be very careful with your words. I don’t think you can hold Bill O’Reilly responsible for abortion guy being killed.
    I don’t think Palin did enough to reject the lets-kill-Giffords interpretation of her ad. (Then again, I suspect she wouldn’t have wanted to make an I’ve-stopped-beating-my-wife statement saying she doesn’t actually support killing those representatives.) Still, I think a lot of this gunsights stuff is easy, post-facto, manufactured outrage for political capital. The use of martial rhetoric and imagery in ads is neither rare nor now. The right has already found ads by the Daily Kos guy that are almost identical to Palin’s. Obama himself has made statements that could be called incitements to violence with the loose standards of evidence being deployed here.

    Like

    Reply
  12. prasad

    HTML tags are the most annoying things ever.

    Like

    Reply
  13. prasad

    Bah.
    This has to work.

    Like

    Reply
  14. prasad

    Why did I say Tarantino? I think I just dislike him so his name must have sprung to mind. He’s an awful person. Scorsese and Taxi Driver of course. Okay, I’ll stop infesting this thread and go back to sleep.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Ruchira

    Prasad, I understand what you (and Jesse) said. I think you guys understand me. Like John Ballard, I am somewhat more annoyed than you are, with those with a spot in the public forum who wouldn’t take responsibility for what they say. Just as in personal interactions, careless rhetoric can have unintended effects in public life also. The lone lunatics sometimes need a rusty nail of acceptable societal discourse to hang their bee-filled bonnets on. I take extremist rhetoric by public figures, whether for network ratings, electoral gains or plain pandering, a little more seriously than “that’s just entertainment / political posturing.” And yes, I would have the same problem with left wing nuts. It’s just that since the hippy era ended, not too many of them except a handful of eco-terrorists and militant animal righters, seem to get carried away these days. Even the latter seem to take aim more at property than human beings.
    I wouldn’t have any quibble if the perpetrator of the Tucson incident is locked up in a psychiatric ward instead of a prison cell, like John Hinckley has been. But that does not excuse what the Palin / Beck / Limbaugh and the whole Tea Party crowd have stirred up unnecessarily. This is the time that the lachrymose John Boehner needs to shed some tears for the genie that he and his colleagues have let out of the bottle. But he is dry eyed for now and probably s–t scared.
    And yes, Tarantino is terrible. Never understood why he became such a glamor boy. Also, thanks for taking care of the HTML tag.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Thebarbarycoast

    Thanks for the comments and vignette everyone.
    Sujatha,
    I’m all for civilizing the tone and condemning outlandish vitriol and shining light etc., but I’m really not that interested in wasting my imagination on creating an individual or group that might be happy about the bloodbath. Show them to me and then we can have that conversation.
    Ruchira,
    You say: “If our political commentary by pundits and politicians is more restrained (no mention of “second amendment remedies”, no drawing of cross-hairs on political “targets”) and not given to lethal rhetoric, we would not be wondering whether a lone nut case was, or was not, inspired by politics.” I respectfully disagree. If a civilized tone did exist in our politics and the attempted killing of a Congresswoman transpired, I would still wonder if there was a political motivation at work. I would not say to myself “well everyone is so polite in our national discourse, so that rules that out.” And I would judge the evidence as it arrived.
    narayan,
    ;-)
    prasad,
    You are such a smarty!
    John Ballard,
    Good links. Do we disagree on something?
    Elatia,
    Your seductive skill with words almost has me wanting to read another sentence about Sarah Palin!
    And of course M. Courbet’s desperate/mad man was aimed at your corner of the stands.
    Its been a day of sleep and continued processing & now at work. I know a few of Giffords’ friends and it has been hard to come up with soothing words that don’t sound feeble, a stunned impotence seems to mark the moment.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Sujatha

    Jesse,
    Touche.
    “wasting my imagination on creating an individual or group that might be happy about the bloodbath”.
    Actually, my imagination fails to come up with suitable search terms that might point me in the direction of any such groups. All I can find that seems faintly indicative is this:
    http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/the-umbrella-org-should-be-called-happy-named-groups-against-giffords.html
    for a list of organizations and groups that didn’t like Gifford’s politics in the first place.
    Let’s go to the Citizens United website, perchance there is a short note condemning the shooting and praying for Gifford’ recovery. Nope
    http://www.citizensunited.org/index.aspx
    Let’s try the next, Americans for Prosperity:
    Ah, here they have been on the ball and put up a suitably edifying statement.
    http://www.americansforprosperity.org/national-site
    But wait, the all-powerful Family Research Council is silent.
    http://www.frc.org/
    Sarah Palin’s PAC
    http://www.sarahpac.com/
    ‘My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona.’
    Ouch.Maybe there’s a cultural thing at work here, I’ve always interpreted condolences as something to be offered to the families of the dead, and wishes for recovery to those who were injured.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Ruchira

    Jesse / Prasad,
    My quibble is not so much with uncivil or even angry discourse. I don’t believe that people need to be especially polite when they disagree on policy matters. What I was pointing to is “incitement,” as a means of remedy when things don’t go one’s way. There is a difference and I have explained why. Paul Krugman sees things more or less the way I do.
    A couple of cent’s worth more here on how I feel about the entire scenario. (But then, I am a tired old liberal like John) It is ironic that Giffords was “targeted” by her opponents (her office had been vandalized prior to the shooting) specifically for her support of the Health Care bill. It may never dawn on the Death Panel crowd that affordable and accessible health care for citizens is actually a protection against such violence. Especially crucial is to include mental health care as an integral part of overall well being. Disturbed individuals such as Loughner ought to be treated and cared for before they go over the edge. Will the right wing “revolutionaries” see a correlation? I doubt it. Their prescription probably is to throw every mentally disturbed person on the streets (the trend began in the ’80s when Ronald Reagan ended funding for psychiatric facilities to balance the budget) until they commit a violent act and then throw them in prison, preferably one of those privately managed maximum security facilities that exist in states like Arizona. We are so ass-over-head, in our national priorities that it would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

    Like

    Reply
  19. prasad

    Ruchira,
    Yes, I think you’re right about incitement, and indeed I don’t think it’s equally powerful/salient on the left and right today. I guess I’m saying
    a. it’s not clear this guy was reading Sharron Angle / Sarah Palin – they’re not on his extensive (and quite impressive) reading list ;)
    b. this violent gunsight thing I think is a distraction. I can identify Sarah Palin talk that’s had negative political impact from my perspective: death panels, momma grizzly feminism and drill baby drill, for example. Don’t think this ad is at that level of importance, and really I find no reason to think Palin wanted this to happen. She’d have wanted to whip up support, not this kind of attention.
    Also, in line with your point about mental health, this would be a great time to make it harder for the mentally unstable to buy guns. Don’t think that’s going to happen, as the media acts out civility wars.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Sujatha

    Now the websites that didn’t earlier have pious good wishes and condolences have finally put them up, I’ll let them go.
    I still think that liberals should continue to hammer home the point about all the hateful rhetoric and the kind of atmosphere it contributes to that pushes unbalanced people over the edge,even if conservatives cry ‘No fair’.
    Not that the shock-jocks will change their ways and suddenly sing Kumbayah instead of spouting off, or support better mental health treatment and preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. That’s their bread and butter, and they know it. They are perfectly aware that the roiling of the masses that they create has very definite consequences, and they will not be shamed into renouncing this kind of vitriolic verbiage.

    Like

    Reply
  21. Dean C. Rowan

    Away from the news this weekend, I didn’t learn about the shootings until reading this very post yesterday. Outside the context of the story, Jesse’s remarks seemed rather cryptic. I learned something somewhere had gone horribly wrong, but I didn’t know what it was. Now, having caught up with everybody else, I’m missing the clear link tying Laughner to a meaningful political motivation, despite that theme’s pervasiveness in media accounts. Take this NYT story about Arizona politics, for example. Or this very direct post at Pharyngula promoting the politicization of the shooting.
    I can’t disagree with the Times writer’s observation that “Arizona has shifted from a place on the political fringe to symbol of a nation whose political discourse has lost its way.” The shift may very well now be a consequence of the killings, but this is more a function of second-order interpretation of the event and its aftermath than indicative of the true cause of the shootings. Political discourse long ago lost its way, after all. This is merely symbolic of that lapse.
    Myers at Pharyngula wants to emphasize, among other things, that “right-wing pundits make a living as professional goads to insanity.” This reads to me like non sequitur or misplaced opportunism. On second thought, Myers’ rant springs from a confusion of varieties of the political. Of course the tragedy is a political one, not in the sense that it necessarily bodes certain consequences for right- or left-wingers as such, but in the sense that much of our lives entails a politics: shopping, driving, working, reading, dressing… The fact that this was “an attempted assassination of a politician by an insane crank at a political event, in a state where the political discourse has been an unrelenting howl of eliminationist rhetoric” is largely beside the point. Not entirely: clearly politics provides a salient backdrop to the event. But does Myers really want to resort to politics–in the narrower sense of a formalized practice of governance or administration–to remedy hot-headed rhetoric and banal capitalist goading of lunatic notions political only in name? If he intends the broader sense, then why resort to left versus right distinctions? His example, a cartoon featuring an ironically disingenuous plea not to “slap” Sarah Palin, proves too much in its effort to mirror right-wing belligerent discourse. It really isn’t funny, but not because it resorts to a barely tempered violent invective. What makes it tasteless and offensive to a sense of humor is that it’s clever, and cleverness spells doom for most attempts at humor. The “political” point it makes–what’s good for the goose, etc.–is trite.
    The comments here worry this theme, and I think appropriately so. Welcome aboard, Jesse.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Doug Hailey

    This most recent tragedy in Tucson, leaves us asking why? More importantly who can we blame? How about President Obama or Sara Palin, certainly not ourselves. Why has our America become so polarized? Is it the fault of extreme religious conservatives on the right or the wild socialist liberals on the left? Is it the Media that plays up the negative, giving airtime to those placing targets on there opponents, rather than boring discussions of the issues with a moderates from either party? Face it we must like the flakes, be it politics or American Idol, or the Media wouldn’t give them airtime.
    What would our founding fathers like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin say? They knew that our great experiment in Democracy required meaningful civil debate. They knew they were in this together, first against the British and then for survival during those early years. They did not call to question the patriotism of those they disagreed with. What would they see or more importantly think if they examined us;
    • America at the verge of Bankruptcy, ballooning deficits, Government Gridlock, Bailouts on bailouts and still 10% Unemployment.
    • Our Politicians more obligated to the sources of special interest money, pandering to extremist views or big business to raise the money to get elected. Many, not all have forgot they work for us, spending more time raising money than studying bills.
    • Mexico our neighbor to the south in civil war because of our appetite for illegal drugs. Mexican states like Nuevo Leon on the southern portion of the Nafta Super Highway are replacing local Police departments with an Army to fight the Drug Cartels. Why, because America wants recreational drugs.
    • Given an Ipod and noise canceling earbuds, would they bob to popular RAP or Hip Hop tunes that drone the N, F or H words, preaching intolerance for Gays and enslavement for women? By the way the H word spelled correctly, starts with a W.
    • Would they be impressed how 38 States over several decades turned to Lotteries and Gambling to create voluntary taxes from the middle and lower economic classes. Slots that use to be called one armed bandits now resemble electronic spiders, playing layers of games simultaneously, that convince the addicted they are winning when they are not. On 60 minutes this week Governor of Pennsylvania basically said since the Addicts are going to gamble anyway, why shouldn’t Pennsylvania get its share of the action. I have to believe many Quakers are rolling over in their graves on that one.
    This World, this Earth desperately needs a Democratic model that works, where civil discourse and fairness rules. Where though hard work any Man or Woman can pull themselves up. Where Education is prized and thru the Web available to everyone regardless of class or ethnic background. Where there is separation between Church and State allowing the people to find God in there own way, including making mistakes and learning from them. Where all Government, works together for the good of all Americans and Elections are funded without Special Interests and Extremists buying influence.
    The last item, was what many like myself thought the Change that was coming should be…. We are still Hopeful…
    These and other huge problems cannot be solved by sound bites and posturing, but by both parties putting aside their differences, and conduct the people business in a civil and respectful way honoring the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.
    If you agree or disagree, please pass this on to your friends family and elected officials, we all are responsible, but we can change…
    God Bess the Congresswoman and those that died in Tucson especially the little girl born on September 11, 2001…..
    God Bless America

    Like

    Reply
  23. Ruchira

    Now this. Of course, we won’t be able to prove anything if someone takes aim at Obama with one of these limited-edition beauties. Meanwhile, Palin is crying Blood Libel.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Jesse Schaefer

    Everyone,
    Please forgive my “Gifford’s” above which should be: Giffords’ – most irritating.

    Like

    Reply
  25. Ruchira

    Jesse: All authors can go back and edit the content of their own posts and the ensuing comments. They cannot edit another author’s post or comments. If however, they make a mistake in the comments section of someone else’s post, they can ask the author or me to correct it. I can edit all the posts and comments if need be.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Elliptical reviews

    No offense, but if there’s a facebook like button, it’ll be much easier for me to share.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Ruchira Cancel reply