Summing up the Giffords shooting

Indian Comics Irregular #201:  Hate Speech Leads to Hate Acts

God good, Father Sky bad?

Graham:  Prayer service turns to rally

Ignoring God and Tucson clergy is appalling mistake

By Franklin GrahamHow sad. Father Sky and Mother Earth can do nothing to comfort Capt. Mark Kelly, who had been at the bedside of his wife, Rep. Giffords, wondering if she'd ever leave her bed. Or Mavy Stoddard, who was only alive because her husband sacrificed his life by shielding her with his body. Or the family, classmates, teammates and friends of little Christina, whose life was snuffed out before she could play another season of Little League.

For the sake of these innocent people and for Americans everywhere, I wish someone could have prayed to the One who created all of us, Almighty God. The president quoted from the great textbook of grief, the Old Testament book of Job--always fitting words in times like these. Perhaps the Yaqui tribe representative, the president of the university--someone--could have echoed the words of the Psalmist: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth."

What a shame that the University of Arizona didn't have enough sensitivity to suffering families and a watching nation to invoke the name of the God who is "Father to the fatherless and protector of widows." In fact, any of the 150 chapters of Psalms picked at random would have offered more comfort than the mystical rambling delivered from the stage. My question: Why were the clergy of Tucson--the men of God--excluded?Comment:  Graham is the same guy who expressed his bigotry against Islam earlier, so you know where he's coming from. His remarks are stupid for several reasons:

1) The Creator invoked by Gonzales is the same deity as the Christian God. Who is also the same as Allah and every other monotheistic god. Duh.

2) Who is Graham to say what kind of prayer would've comforted the victims? It's asinine to claim Christians like only Christian things, Jews like only Jewish things, etc. Graham seems incapable of understanding that everyone isn't a narrow-minded bigot like him.

I've yet to read any quotes from the survivors saying they didn't appreciate Gonzales's remarks at the memorial service. Again, who is Graham to speak for them? Other than a self-serving shill for his own religion, I mean.

3) Obama quoted from the Bible, as Graham admits, so the Christian perspective was adequately covered. Graham seems to be carping because the service wasn't 100% Christian despite the multiple faiths of the people present.

4) To answer Graham's question about why "the men of God" were excluded, try the First Amendment, dummy.

It would've been funny if Obama found a lesbian pastor or some equally unconventional Christian to talk about God. Would Graham and the other conservative crybabies have welcomed that?

No, of course not. When they talk about God, they're really talking about white male Christians like themselves. They're upset because someone other than them got the limelight for once.

For more on the subject, see Apology for "Ugly" Prayer Remarks and Conservatives Attack "Ugly" Native Prayer.

Below:  The only God conservative Christians recognize.

Keith Olbermann on the Giffords shooting

Keith Olbermann addresses the Giffords shooting with a plea to end the hateful and violent rhetoric:



Comment:  Obama should've said something like this in his speech at the Tucson memorial. Apologize for any mistakes he made, pledge to eschew violence-oriented rhetoric, and challenge everyone else to do the same.

For more on the subject, see Political Vitriol in the Giffords Shooting and A History of Conservative Hate Speech.

Arizona is the new Alabama

In Political Vitriol in the Giffords Shooting and A History of Conservative Hate Speech, I noted some of the vitriol infecting the country in general. Here's a hint of the vitriol infecting Jared Lee Loughner's Arizona in particular:

Arizona’s Long Dark Night Continues

By Randall Amster"Even before the shooting of a U.S. congresswoman on Saturday, the state of Arizona was in the throes of a convulsive political year that had come to symbolize a bitter partisan divide across much of America," writes David Schwartz for Reuters. "I feel huge sorrow, that's just been building in southern Arizona for some time, this hate, hate, fear, somewhat around SB 1070, somewhat around healthcare reform. It definitely heated up when President Obama was elected," said Molly McKasson Morgan, 63, who participated in Tucson politics and knew Giffords. "It's never been this angry, it's never been this divisive," said Alfredo Gutierrez, a former state lawmaker.

These trends of divisiveness and open hostility have been manifesting for some time here. Following the passage of SB 1070 and approaching its date of implementation last July, I observed the growing tendency toward violence and its unabashed cultivation:

"One of the unspoken tragedies and implicit intentions of Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, is the promotion of a climate of fear among certain segments of the population. This fear-mongering strategy has been cooked up by the bill's leading proponents and most likely beneficiaries: the governor, rightwing state legislators, and an unscrupulous sheriff who shall remain nameless.... Fostering an environment of racialized violence is the harsh reality of Arizona's drive toward legislated intolerance. For those who might feel saturated by the incessant news about immigration, or who wonder ‘what's the big deal?' about SB 1070 and the like, this is a reminder of the stakes involved. Will there be a climate of escalating fear, hatred, and violence that takes over, or will this be a tipping point toward social justice and human dignity instead? Politics and legalities aside, this is the basic question that the Arizona dilemma is posing to the nation...."Arizona’s enemy:  The Collective Consciousness of Hate

By Three SonoransYou have already seen plenty on the media about Sarah Palin painting crosshairs on Giffords’ district.

Lock and load!

Don’t retreat, re-load!

If the crosshairs were not bad, why did Sarah Palin take them down from her website this weekend?

JT Ready is already noting the fact that Gabrielle Giffords is the

“first Jew to Congress from Arizona.”

Giffords district is along the Mexican border, and the rancher that was killed, Robert Krentz, was in her district. They immediately blamed a Mexican for the shooting even though, to this day, there is no suspect.

A few weeks ago a border patrol agent was killed just south of Tucson in Rio Rico.

JT Ready sent a message to my friend in the Latino media up in Phoenix that

“Your people took one of ours today. We WILL get revenge.”

The point here is that the same anti-Mexican, anti-Immigrant forces are also neo-Nazis, and Nazis tend to be anti-Jew last I heard. They are filled with hatred of humanity.And:Once the seed of fear is planted in an individual, it can grow to consume them, especially if it is watered and nourished with a daily supply of fear.

They are invading our country!

Aztlan… they want to retake the United States!

We are going to be the minority!

Border invasion!

Illegals!

They don’t speak English!

They are taking our jobs!

They are not one of us!And:The election of the first black president changed everything.

People were afraid that a non-American was in the White House. And Fox News fanned those flames, and so did right-wingers.

“We are not afraid of Obama coming to Arizona… he has to show us his papers also!” – Russell Pearce.

We end up clinging to the Bible in these times… the same Bible which the right-wing claims is predicting that these are the end times.

The apocalypse is near.

Time to cling to those Bibles… and those guns!

What good is a gun if you never use it?

Set a target, set your crosshairs on Gabby Giffords. Say lock and load. Say don’t retreat, reload!

And then take no responsibility for your actions.Comment:  Arizona seems to be the proving ground for today's right-wing hate just as Alabama was in the 1960s. The same "toxic environment" theory applies.

If black activists stood up to police in one part of Alabama and whites lynched black activists in another part of Alabama, is there any doubt the two events were linked? No. The climate of bigotry and fear put every black at risk whether they were protesting or not.

Same for anyone who opposes the conservative hatemongering in Arizona. Whether they're in Sarah Palin's someone's crosshairs or not, they face a greater risk of harm. Ask yourself this: In today's political climate, would you stand on a street corner in Tucson and shout slogans for healthcare reform, immigration, and gun control? I wouldn't.

The ultimate point of these Giffords postings, why they're relevant to Newspaper Rock, is that this fear and hate has infected America since the beginning. Fear of the unknown, fear of the dark(-skinned), fear of anyone who calls our God-given truths into question.

Native Americans endured it, then blacks, then other minorities. Now gays and Muslims are enduring it. It's all about white Christian Euro-Americans maintaining their power and privilege over everyone else. These people will never be satisfied with "all men (and women) are created equal." Not unless there's a corollary that says, "...but we get to rule."

For more on Arizona, see Arizona Laws = Manifest Insanity and Arizona Laws = Clash of Civilizations. For more on the fundamental issue, see Culture War Over Who's American and Angry White Christians Want Country Back.

Apology for "ugly" prayer remarks

A response to the item posted in Conservatives Attack "Ugly" Native Prayer:

Law firm apologizes for 'inappropriate' post on Yaqui man's prayer"I sincerely apologize to my readers, to the Yaqui tribe, to all tribal leaders and Indian people, and, specifically, to Carlos Gonzales who delivered the prayer," Meringoff wrote yesterday afternoon. "I regret my poor choice of words, and I have removed the post."

Powerilne is a personal blog but Meringoff's employer and colleagues weren't pleased with the situation. James Meggesto, a member of the Onondaga Nation who runs the firm's Indian law and policy practice, said he was "shocked, appalled and embarrassed" by the comments.

"As soon as I and the firm became aware of this posting, the firm took immediate action to deal firmly with this unfortunate situation," Meggesto said.

"We sincerely apologize for the blog entry posted by Akin Gump partner Paul Mirengoff on his personal blog, powerlineblog.com. Akin Gump is neither affiliated with, nor a supporter of, the blog," Bruce McLean, the chairman of the firm, said in response. "We found his remarks to be insensitive and wholly inconsistent with Akin Gump’s values. Mr. Mirengoff regrets his poor choice of words and agreed to remove his post.”Comment:  It's one thing to criticize a religion or its tenets if you're debating a religious subject. For instance, the Mormon belief that American Indians are a lost tribe of Israel. It's another thing to gratuitously insult a religion for no particular reason.

I don't have a lot of use for religions, but I don't go out of my way to criticize their beliefs and practices. Calling a prayer "ugly" is a subjective value judgment that has no relevance to an intellectual debate.

As the article notes:Akin Gump is one of Washington, D.C.'s largest law and lobbying firms. Its 2010 clients included the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona and the Seneca Nation of New York.Can you imagine if you're an Indian client and you get Paul Meringoff assigned to your case? "Uh, could we have someone who doesn't think our culture and religion are primitive and 'ugly' compared to the white man's Christianity? Thanks."

This is a good example of the statement that words have consequences. Meringoff was free to post what he wanted...and his employers were free to react the way they wanted. They obviously thought his rant would strike their Indian clients as anti-Indian. So they "coaxed" him to take it down.

For more Christian vs. Native religious conflicts, see Christian Crees Tear Down Sweat Lodge and Catholics to Ban Indian Practices?

Tim Wise on Loughner's paranoia

Author Tim Wise explains how the right-wing environment of hate-filled rhetoric contributed to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords:

Paranoia as Prelude:  Conspiracism and the Cost of Political RageIt is not that Loughner is, literally, a devotee of the right or its organizational edifices. In all likelihood he is not. Rather, it is pertinent—and should not be ignored by those who are trying to de-politicize his crimes—that his paranoid lunacy, the contours of which one can explore thanks to the wonders of the internet, transpired in a nation where paranoia and its peddling have become common fare. In such a place, the Jared Loughners of the world become ever-more dangerous. And it is this about which we should be rightly concerned.

For while Loughner would never have likely contemplated political assassination in a culture where the most pressing issue was, say, a simple philosophical disagreement over tax policy, or the proper balance between interest rates and full employment, or the percentage of GDP dedicated to debt service as opposed to long-term infrastructure investment, that is not the culture in which he (or any of us) lives. Rather, we live in a nation in which it is commonplace, and considered completely rational, for elected officials to believe the President is a foreign interloper. We live in a culture where the nation’s most powerful Republican, House Speaker John Boehner, cannot bring himself to condemn the maniacal derangement that is birtherism, but is reduced instead to a mere acknowledgement that since Hawaii says the President is a citizen, that’s “good enough for him.”

We live in a culture in which it is utterly normal, to a degree that has sadly made it nearly banal, to hear multi-million dollar, best-selling authors and talk show hosts suggest that the nation is on the verge of total fascism, death panels for the elderly, door-to-door gun confiscation, and the reconquest of the American southwest by Latinos bent on ethnic war. In short, in a society where paranoia is the daily currency of mainstream commentators, and pseudo-schizophrenic ramblings are elevated to the level of persuasive argument, we ought not be surprised that such a tragedy as occurred on Saturday might happen.And:In a media environment where highly paid commentators can keep their jobs even as they insist that those who call for the shooting of government agents so as to stop a world government takeover are “beginning to have a case,” or that a national service initiative is just a run-up to the implementation of a literal stormtrooper corps like the Nazi SS, or that “multicultural people” are “destroying the culture of this country,” or that Latino migrants are an “invasive species,” that seeks to undermine the nation, or that the President is intentionally “destroying the economy” so as to pay white people back for slavery, or that, worse, he and other Democrats are vampires, the only solution for which is a “stake through the heart,” to feign shock at the acts of a Jared Loughner is a precious and naive conceit that we can no longer afford.

Whether or not Loughner was influenced directly by any of these words, these verbal daggers aimed at civil discourse, is quite beside the point. For these words, these daggers, are the very ether of the political culture in which he has come of age. They comprise the fabric of the larger ideological tapestry to which he has been exposed. And they are, like any toxin, bio-accumulative in the cells of the human animal, even more so for those whose chemical balance is already dicey at best. Especially when such persons have the misfortune of living in a society that has so completely stigmatized mental illness as to guarantee that most who suffer will receive no treatment.

In such a place as this, to claim that Americans may need to turn to “Second Amendment Remedies” for political change—as defeated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle did in Nevada—or that Americans should be “armed and dangerous” to resist policies aimed at reducing climate change—as another Tea Party Republican, Michele Bachmann has—or that perhaps liberal politicians should be beaten to death with shovels—as Glenn Beck said about Congressman Charlie Rangel in 2001—is to invite chaos. It is to invite murder, whether by loners like Loughner or someone else down the line. It is inevitable. To insist, as Congressman Boehner did, that health care reform is tantamount to “armageddon”—not merely a matter of philosophical difference but the literal end of the world—is to all but invite the unbalanced to start slaughtering the forces of presumptive evil.Comment:  Although it appears Loughner shared the right wing's anti-government paranoia, we'll never know exactly what triggered him. And the precise triggers don't matter. It's inarguable that he lived in a climate that condoned the use of guns, violence, and hate against one's political opponents.

Many others comments have made similar points. Here are two of them:If I drive a car, I add to the burden of carbon in the atmosphere, and carbon in the atmosphere causes global warming. Can we run a controlled experiment on the earth to "prove" that? No. Is there ample evidence in the form of correlation between carbon and temperature? Yes. Does that mean that I personally caused the latest hurricane? No, of course not. Does it mean that I have no responsibility for my contribution do the problem? No, it does not mean that either.And:What politicians and pundits need to realize is that hate speech is not just about guns and targets. It's every time they demean a class of people. It's every time they call the unemployed lazy, the homeless drug addicts, gays as perverts. All of this talk leads to a mindset that it's OK to take some kind of action against them. That only the strong, successful class has the right to the freedoms of this country.For more on the subject, see Conservative Hatemongers Deny Responsibility, Political Vitriol in Giffords Shooting, and A History of Conservative Hate Speech.

Mocking the hatemongers' denial

I've enjoyed ridiculing the conservative claim that violent and hate-filled rhetoric doesn't and can't affect anyone. You've seen my Newspaper Rock postings on the subject: Tim Wise on Loughner's Paranoia, Conservative Hatemongers Deny Responsibility, and Words Don't Trigger Actions?! Here are more of my comments from Facebook:

Conservatives: Can we agree that Timothy McVeigh was influenced by right-wing extremism? Or do you want to defend and excuse his behavior too?

Possible political campaign slogans: "We're going to shoot our opponents in the head--but with ballots, not bullets." "We're going to shoot them until they're dead--politically speaking." Because this kind of rhetoric doesn't inflame or influence anyone, right?

I guess all the death threats Obama has received are just "metaphorical" death threats, right? "We want Obama to die and burn in hell, but not really"? I guess the Secret Service can ignore this kind of conservative rhetoric because nobody would ever act on his deep-seated hatred of liberals, minorities, and non-believers. Am I right, people?

News flash: Conservative researchers have determined that no one in Nazi Germany was influenced by ideological hate speech. Incredibly, 80 million mentally unstable people with a propensity for ethnically-oriented violence just happened to gather in one spot. What are the odds?!

It seems impossible, yet conservatives assure us that ideology can't motivate anyone to act. Amazing!

Said one Austrian neighbor, "Those 80 million Germans were always quiet and kept to themselves. They seemed like good boys and girls. I had no idea they'd turn into mass murderers."

Palin's "blood libel"

Sarah Palin opened a whole new avenue of mockery with her defense of her bullseye on Gabrielle Giffords:

Sarah Palin's charge of 'blood libel' spurs outcry from Jewish leaders

By James Oliphant"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others," said David Harris, president of the National Democratic Jewish Council, in a statement. "This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries--and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today."

"The term 'blood libel' is not a synonym for 'false accusation,'" said Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice. "It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out of line."Palin comes out swinging, and misses

Sarah Palin had a chance with her statement on the Tucson tragedy to show voters she's equal to the demands of the presidency. But her video reflected her chosen role as lightning rod of the right.

By Doyle McManusPalin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument "serves only to incite … violence."

Consider that assertion for a moment: Palin says her words could not possibly have created a climate of violence, but claims her opponents' words are certain to.

What was missing in her statement? Any acknowledgment, even implicit, that anyone on her own side had ever stepped over the line as well.News flash: To honor the post-Tucson calls for civility, conservatives have decided to rename "death panels" as "dispose of grandma prematurely panels." "We thought that would be less negative and confrontational," said one right-winger.

News flash: Liberals are considering calling the Tea Party's use of the term "death panels" the worst "blood libel" since Hitler. "We'd do it," said one leftist, "but we understand the term's significance, unlike stupid conservatives."

"My accusation that liberals want to kill grandma is totally different from their accusation that I want to kill Gabrielle Giffords," said a whining Sarah Palin. "I put a bullseye on her, so I really mean it.

"Or is it the other way around...?" she continued, looking like a deer in the headlights. "It's so hard to tell without the answers written on my hand."

"When we called them death panels," said a teary-eyed Palin as her presidential chances went up in a puff of smoke, "we thought it was just a cute nickname. We didn't expect anyone to take us seriously. Everyone knows this kind of rhetoric can't change anyone's opinions."

Conclusion

Have I made the point clear? Or do I need to continue mocking the hatemongers' denial of fomenting the violence they fomented?

For typical examples of the hatemongers' rhetoric, see Conservatives Attack "Ugly" Native Prayer and Obama's UN "Coup" Is "Chilling."

Below:  Obama prepares to help his brown-skinned tribal brothers by giving away the US, according to conservative hatemongers who say he's a traitor, a terrorist, and the anti-Christ.

Conservatives attack "ugly" Native prayer

Unwilling to attack President Obama during the nonpartisan memorial to the shooting victims in Tucson, conservatives found something they could attack:



Memorial Service’s Native American Prayer Confuses Some

By Jonathon M. SeidlIt was an 8 minute prayer that referenced everything from Father Sky to things that “slither.”

Last night’s Tucson memorial service opening blessing from Native American Carlos Gonzalez had some raising their eyebrows and many scratching their heads. What exactly was it? A prayer, a blessing, a personal information session on Carlos Gonzalez? All of the above?The Attack on a Native American Blessing

By JasonYesterday, a memorial service was held in Tucson, Arizona for those killed and injured in the horrific shooting this past Saturday. While President Obama’s speech was almost universally praised for its heartfelt honoring of those involved, and “elevating the political debate,” other aspects of the evening were not received as warmly. Most notably, there’s been a wave of criticism regarding the opening invocation by Dr. Carlos Gonzales, a Pascua Yaqui Indian and associate professor at the University of Arizona, College of Medicine.Some of these attacks:Native American gives rambling speech while holding a feather. His remarks are frequently interrupted by whoops and cheers. He gives a shout-out to his son serving in Afghanistan. Brags about his ethnic Mexican background. Babbles about two-legged and four-legged creatures and the feminine energy that comes from Mother Earth. Mercy.

Michelle Malkin

As for the "ugly," I’m afraid I must cite the opening "prayer" by Native American Carlos Gonzales. It was apparently was some sort of Yaqui Indian tribal thing, with lots of references to "the creator" but no mention of God. [...] In any event, the invocation could have used more God, less Mexico, and less Carlos Gonzales.

Paul Meringoff

[N]o Catholic priest, Baptist minister or Jewish rabbi was included in the program. What was included was a rambling "Native American Blessing" at the outset of the program. This blessing provided a stark statement of pantheistic paganism, including forthright declarations concerning "Father Sky," "Mother Earth" and the "Creator."

Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner

In fact, a whole weird vibe was set at the very beginning of the memorial with pseudo-Native American medicine man Carlos Gonzales. He began the off kilter scene with his pseudo-blessing of rocks and trees, northern doors, and--well, whatever he was blessing, anyway. His self-referential promotion was also quite off-putting.

Warner Todd Huston, Yahoo! Contributor NetworkConservative Media Attack Native American Blessing At AZ Memorial Service

Why a Native blessing?

More sensible people offered a rationale for Gonzales's blessing:Gonzales was a fitting choice for several reasons, says Patty Talahongva, who is Hopi and past president of the Native American Journalists Association. The tribal reservation is in the district of gravely injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. And he’s a symbol of Arizona’s diversity—part of the university president Robert Shelton’s ongoing campaign to bring all streams of thought, culture and tradition into the campuses. (Hence the title “Together we thrive” on the funeral programs).

Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today

It is fitting and proper that Dr. Carlos Gonzales offers a prayer at tonight’s memorial for the victims, survivors and their families of the shooting that left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. Dr. Gonzales is an associate professor at the University of Arizona, College of Medicine. He is a medical doctor. He is also a Pascua Yaqui Indian who embraces his culture and is learning the ways of traditional healing.

Dr. Gonzales will aid in the healing of this community, this state and indeed this nation in the wake of such violence.

Patty Talahongva for Youth RadioJason explains what's wrong with the protests:What’s troubling about this wave of criticism towards Dr. Carlos Gonzales is that it shows how little tolerance there is in some corners for any expression of religion that isn’t Christian or some flavor of ceremonial deism. Even during a memorial that many felt was uniting and uplifting, the wave of scare quotes, snide remarks, and insults against indigenous religions couldn’t be held back. This is the same impulse that led to the disruption of Rajan Zed’s Senante invocation, the ignorance and arrogance that only comes from almost total religious and cultural power and privilege. These hectoring voices darkly reinforce the attitudes that continually place Arizona’s recreation over the sacred land of its indigenous peoples. They are a sour note in what was, on the whole, a moment where our country, in all its diversity, came together.Comment:  The conservative crybabies actually have a couple of valid points:

1) Should there be any kind of religious ceremony at a government function? As an agnostic, I'd say no, in general.

2) Eight minutes of any prayer or blessing is about 7.5 minutes too long, as far as I'm concerned.

But these conservatives really weren't concerned with those points. They were offended because someone invoked the Native Creator rather than the Christian God--as if they're different entities.

Note the snide attacks on Native religion: putting "prayer" and "creator" in quotes, calling Gonzales a pseudo-Native, etc. What did they expect: Chief Sitting Bull in full regalia? Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance about Natives, conservatives.

Clearly these people wouldn't have been happy with anything except a Christian priest invoking the Great White Father in the Sky. And don't bother taking their talk about the First Amendment seriously. I'm confident the hypocrites have never denounced Christianity in government: prayers in Congress, "In God We Trust" on currency, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

What it means

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Denigrating Native prayers = denouncing immigrants and Muslims for taking over America = massacring "savage" Indians. It's a historical continuum of thought and action.

Two hundred years ago it was "Kill the savages." One hundred years ago it was "Kill the Indian and save the man." Now it's attack and insult the Indians while encouraging people to bring guns.

Pity the poor, put-upon "real Americans." Won't the brown-skins ever stop picking on them and their god? It sure is getting hard to stay on top if you're a white male Christian. Boo-hoo!

Confirming the notion that white Christian conservatives can't stand the thought of being merely equal to others, these people also protested the "Together We Thrive" t-shirts handed out at the event:

Conservatives Criticize Free T-Shirts At Tucson Memorial Service

Thus justifying my mockery:

Conservatives protest liberal message of unity. "How dare you talk about togetherness when we're trying to take down this Nazi-style dictatorship?" said one madman brandishing a gun.

Conservatives denounce togetherness as a liberal political message. "We're trying to overthrow the Constitution," said one rabid rightist. "We're not interested in togetherness with the blacks, the Jews, and the liberals."

For more on the Giffords shooting, see Conservative Hatemongers Deny Responsibility and Political Vitriol in the Giffords Shooting.

Conservative hatemongers deny responsibility

Let's Get This Straight

By Melissa McEwanThere's no call for accountability, no call for reflection, not among conservatives. Just the usual game of deflection and projection, as they desperately try to find a way to make this liberals' fault.

Bill Kristol took to the airwaves this morning to call criticism of Palin "a disgrace" and accuse liberals of "McCarthyism." Commentators on Fox News, meanwhile, blame President Obama for not changing the tone in Washington, like he promised. Which would be hilarious, were that redirection of blame not a key part of conservatives' strategy to dodge responsibility for the eliminationist rhetoric that certainly contributed to the tragic events of this weekend.

When, a few months ago, there was a spate of widely-publicized suicides of bullied teens, we had, briefly, a national conversation about the dangers of bullying. But in the wake of an ideologically-motivated assassination attempt of a sitting member of Congress, we aren't having a national conversation about the dangers of violent rhetoric—because the conversation about bullying children was started by adults, and there are seemingly no responsible grown-ups to be found among conservatives anymore.

Faced with the overwhelming evidence of the violent rhetoric absolutely permeating the discourse emanating from their side of the aisle, conservatives adopt the approach of a petulant child—deny, obfuscate, and lash out defensively.

And engage in the most breathtaking disingenuous hypocrisy: Conservatives, who vociferously argue against the language and legislation of social justice, on the basis that it all "normalizes" marginalized people and their lives and cultures (it does!), are suddenly nothing but blinking, wide-eyed naïveté when it comes to their own violent rhetoric.

They have a great grasp of cultural anthropology when they want to complain about progressive ideas, inclusion, diversity, and equality. But when it comes to being accountable for their own ideas, their anthropological prowess magically disappears.

Only progressives "infect" the culture, but conservative hate speech exists in a void.

That's what we're meant to believe, anyway. But we know it is not true. This culture, this habit, of eliminationist rhetoric is not happening in a vacuum. It's happening in a culture of widely-available guns (thanks to conservative policies), of underfunded and unavailable medical care, especially mental health care (thanks to conservative policies), of a widespread belief that government is the enemy of the people (thanks to conservative rhetoric), and of millions of increasingly desperate people (thanks to an economy totally fucked by conservative governance).

The shooting in Tucson was not an anomaly. It was an inevitability.Comment:  Excellent essay by Melissa McEwan. This portion echoes the point I made in Words Don't Trigger Actions?!

To reiterate the point, compare two cases. Conservatives say Jared Lee Loughner wasn't influenced by conservative extremism when he shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, but Major Nidal Malik Hasan was influenced by Islamic extremism when he shot soldiers at Ft. Hood? I'd love to hear how they figure that one.

In reality, conservatives denounce pure rhetoric when it comes from Muslim extremists. Or from minorities demanding "inclusion, diversity, and equality," as McEwan put it. These ideas are somehow a threat to our values and our way of life. So we have to shut down ethnic studies programs and American mosques before they infect our children with dangerous thoughts.

But conservative political and religious vitriol is somehow different. It doesn't seem to matter how often conservatives target anyone who isn't a white Christian male...say they're inferior, un-American, or unholy...or try to eliminate their rights. By the power of conservative magic-wishing, this kind of speech doesn't affect anyone.

"When we talk about guns and posses and revolutions," they seem to be saying, "that's just rhetoric. But when liberals talk about Thanksgiving or Sitting Bull, these are covert attempts to brainwash our children. Our hate- and violence-filled speech is harmless, but their tolerance and diversity speech isn't.

Nice try to get away with "murder," conservatives. Too bad we're watching you like a hawk. We'll continue to denounce your lies and hypocrisies as long as you continue to utter them. if you don't like it, stop.

For more on the subject, see Political Vitriol in the Giffords Shooting and A History of Conservative Hate Speech.

Guns in the Giffords shooting

America's love of guns is another important issue in Saturday's Giffords shooting.

Arizona Gun Law:  Concealed Weapons Allowed Without Permit Under New Law

By Paul Davenport and Jonathan J. CooperFavoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.

"I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well," Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement.Serious Guns and White Terrorism:  Two Unasked Questions in Tucson Mass Murder

By Bill QuigleyQuestion: How does a mentally unstable man who was kicked out of school and had run-ins with the law buy such a serious weapon?

The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was a serious weapon--a Glock 19, semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine. Some weapons like that were illegal to sell in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It is now legal to sell and own them. The National Rifle Association reports there are tens of millions of assault weapons in private hands in the US.

The federal background check for people purchasing such weapons only prohibits selling such weapons to people who have been legally determined to be mentally defective or found insane or convicted of crimes. This man had not been found legally mentally defective or convicted so he was legally entitled to purchase an assault weapon. In Arizona he was legally entitled to carry the weapon in a concealed manner.How can a gun-crazed society lead the world?

By David RothkopfAccording to a 2007 survey, the United States leads the world in gun ownership: 90 guns per 100 people. We are a country with five percent of the world's people and between 35 and 50 percent of its civilian-owned guns. That's something like 270 million weapons.

Repeated studies have shown that the United States is far and away the leader among the world's developed countries in gun violence and gun deaths. There is no other developed country that is even close. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence. Most of these are suicides but in excess of 12,000 a year are homicides. Another 200,000 Americans are estimated to be injured each year due to guns.

In 2009, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote a compelling column noting that since 9/11 over 120,000 people have died in the United States as a result of gun violence. By now, the number is in excess of 140,000.

For those in the world who are mystified by this, the legal explanation associated with it by gun rights defenders is that the right to own guns is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This statement has taken on quasi-theological importance for many in the United States even though it is clearly being misinterpreted by those who believe it provides every individual the right to own such guns--including advanced, highly-destructive automatic weapons. The misinterpretation begins with the deliberate ignoring of the first half of the sentence associating the right with the need for a "well-regulated militia." This is a clear qualifier associated with the so-called right to bear arms and had it not been important to the sentence, one can only conclude it would not have been included in the famously sparely written document. If militias don't exist, one can therefore conclude this "right" should be reconsidered if not eliminated.America's history of violence

Charles Trimble:  Assassination attempt highlights gun mentalityI’m not one to say, “I told you so”; at least not in one of my columns. For, fortunately for the world, most of my predictions have come to naught anyway.

But a year ago I posted a column on indianz.com and in other Native journals about my concern over the soaring sales of weapons in this country, and about the mentality of fear and hatred being spread in a nation “gone rogue,” as Sarah Palin and her followers describe the movement. They tout the Constitutional right to bear arms, or as I’ve seen on one tee-shirt “The right to arm bears--Mama Grizzlies.”

Now with the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) and the shooting of eighteen others at her “Congress on the Corner” gathering in Tucson, we’re seeing some of the fruits of the great harvest being reaped by gun makers and weapons sellers.And:I would like to quote from that earlier column extensively, for I think I was right on the money with my concern:

“Guns have always had a good market here in America. It’s a market driven by hunters, frontier re-enactors and collectors. Certainly the underworld and youth gangs in most of the inner cities and increasingly in Indian reservations make up a huge subterranean market that is not even measured in the economy. But the most frightful and dangerous market is represented by paranoid yahoos who see national enemies around every corner and behind every tree. These are people who are driven by fear--mostly fear of minorities whose rights they have trampled over the years, and fear of their own government’s every action to secure human and civil rights and opportunity for those minorities and for the poor in general.

“In the early American colonies and later the ever-expanding frontier, hunting was important to survival; but it was fear of Indians mostly that there was at least one blunderbuss in every home. And this persisted down through the years. Even as late as 1973 when the American Indian Movement occupied the village of Wounded Knee, many whites in a wide area surrounding Pine Ridge and other reservations drove around in their pickup trucks displaying racks of weaponry in the rear windows. Although it has always been in manly vogue to carry hunting rifles in their pickups, some of the guns were assault rifles that wouldn’t have left much of a carcass for dinner.”Comment:  As I said to someone who's trying to play up Jared Lee Loughner's mental problems:

If Loughner made previous threats but was allowed to buy and own a gun, it's a further indictment of Arizona's loose gun culture. Perhaps that was your point: that conservatives let gun nuts own guns.

If so...yes, I agree that conservatives are to blame for that reason too. Stupid conservative gun nuts, that is, who can't read the words "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment.

To sum it up, conservatives slash mental health budgets. Conservatives let nuts carry guns. And conservatives tell the crazies whom to shoot at.

What to do about it

Here's what should happen but probably won't:

A Flood Tide of Murder

By Bob HerbertIf we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.

Ordinary citizens interested in a more sane and civilized society would have to insist that their elected representatives take meaningful steps to stem the violence. And they would have to demand, as well, that the government bring an end to the wars overseas, with their terrible human toll, because the wars are part of the same crippling pathology.

Without those very tough steps, the murder of the innocents by the tens of thousands will most assuredly continue.

I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Gabrielle Giffords story is big for the time being, but so were Columbine and Oklahoma City. And so was the anti-white killing spree of John Muhammad and Lee Malvo that took 10 lives in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in October 2002. But no amount of killing has prompted any real remedial action.

For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered—unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.I'm not sure what individuals like me can do about these problems, but I try my best. As someone who reports and disseminates the news, I spread the word about violence and its links to guns, hate speech, racism, stereotyping, and "entertainment." As someone who works on creative projects, I emphasize intelligent alternatives to violent "solutions." We should all do that much, if not much more.

For more on media violence, see The Evidence Against Media Violence and Highlights of the FTC Report on Media Violence. For more on guns, see Why Americans Keep Killing and Gun Nuts vs. Indians. For more on the Giffords shooting, see Loughner Echoes Right-Wing Extremists and Debating Loughner's Influences.

Political vitriol in the Giffords shooting

Toxic U.S. political climate blamed in Tucson killing spree

By Calvin Woodward and Charles BabingtonSen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate, on Sunday cited imagery of crosshairs on political opponents and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s combative rallying cry, “Don’t retreat; reload.”

“These sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response,” Durbin said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The attack might be the work of “a single nut,” Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, whose Arizona district shares Tucson with Giffords’ district, said Saturday, the day Giffords was shot. But he said the nation must assess the fallout of “an atmosphere where the political discourse is about hate, anger and bitterness.”

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who is teamed with federal authorities in a joint investigation, emerged as a particularly outspoken figure after warning Saturday that “freedom of speech does not come without consequences” and describing Arizona as “the capital, the mecca, for prejudice and bigotry.”

On Sunday Dupnik expanded on the warning, saying, “when the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates” reaches a fever pitch, it “has impact on people, especially (those) who are unbalanced personalities to begin with.”A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?

By Matt BaiIt wasn’t clear Saturday whether the alleged shooter in Tucson was motivated by any real political philosophy or by voices in his head, or perhaps by both. But it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.

The problem here doesn’t lie with the activists like most of those who populate the Tea Parties, ordinary citizens who are doing what citizens are supposed to do—engaging in a conversation about the direction of the country. Rather, the problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences.

Consider the comments of Sharron Angle, the Tea Party favorite who unsuccessfully ran against Harry Reid for the Senate in Nevada last year. She talked about “domestic enemies” in the Congress and said, “I hope we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies.” Then there’s Rick Barber, a Republican who lost his primary in a Congressional race in Alabama, but not before airing an ad in which someone dressed as George Washington listened to an attack on the Obama agenda and gravely proclaimed, “Gather your armies.”

In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered—like the Tea Party moniker itself—on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.Pointing fingers at the right

A columnist puts the blame where it belongs:

The Wrath of Fools:  An Open Letter to the Far Right

By William Rivers PittI just thought you should know a few things about the people you helped into their graves and hospital beds this weekend.

Yes, you.

You false patriots who bring assault rifles to political rallies, you hack politicians and media personalities who lied through your stinking teeth about "death panels" and "Obama is coming for your guns" and "He isn't a citizen" and "He's a secret Muslim" and "Sharia Law is coming to America," you who spread this bastard gospel and you who swallowed it whole, I am talking to you, because this was your doing just as surely as it was the doing of the deranged damned soul who pulled the trigger. The poison you injected into our culture is deeply culpable for this carnage.

You who worship Jesus at the top of your lungs (in defiance of Christ's own teachings on the matter of worship, by the way) helped put several churchgoers into their graves and into the hospital. You who shriek about the sanctity of marriage helped cut down a man who was about to be married. You who crow with ceaseless abandon about military service and the nobility of our fighting forces helped to critically wound the wife of a Naval aviator who fought for you in a war. You who hold September 11 as your sword and shield helped put a little girl born on that day into the ground.

You helped. Yes, damn you, you helped.

The "mainstream" media is already working overtime playing up the "Disturbed loner" angle with all their might. There is no doubt, from the available evidence, of Mr. Loughner's transformation into a disturbed individual. But here's the funny part: all the crazy crap he spewed, about the gold standard (a favorite of Glenn Beck, the master of Fox "News" fearmongering...so he can sell his gold scam to suckers) and government mind control and everything else before going on his rampage, is straight out of the Right-Wing Insanity Handbook. His personal YouTube ramblings were a mishmash of right-wing anti-government nonsense...the kind that attracts sick minds like Loughner, the kind that only reinforces their paranoia, the kind that finally pushes them over the brink and into the frenzy of violence that took place on Saturday. The kind that the likes of you have been happily spreading by the day.

He did not act alone. You were right there with him. You helped.Conservative crybabies can't take it

It's hilarious to hear conservatives crybabies whine about liberals pointing out their hate speech. Boo-hoo, you big babies! And to hear moderates whine about the political vitriol on both sides. News flash: It's ridiculous to equate hate speech with pointing out hate speech. One is the problem and the other is the solution.

Here's a good critique of the false equivalence conservatives are drawing between the right and the left:

When It Comes to the Rhetoric of Rage, the Right Has the Edge

By David CornThere is indeed over-the-top talk on the left. During the Bush years, far-left protesters at anti-war rallies referred to Bush and Dick Cheney as fascists. Conspiracy theorists on the left claimed the Bush-Cheney crew had started the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to enrich their pals in the oil and contracting industries. Some lefties (and righties) accused the president of having staged 9/11--or of allowing it to happen--so he'd have a pretext for war. It was hateful stuff. But this rhetoric tended not to imply violence or insurrection. More to the point, such excessive rhetoric was not adopted and/or accepted by Democratic leaders.Right. When liberals hate the president, they talk about impeachment. When conservatives hate the president, they talk about violence.

While we're at it, spare me talk about Loughner's "personal responsibility" for his actions. These pundits have taken that into consideration. They didn't say the conservative rhetoric compelled him to act.

Rather, they're talking about the "toxic rhetoric" and hate-filled "atmosphere" that can "lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response." "[T]he kind that attracts sick minds like Loughner, the kind that only reinforces their paranoia, the kind that finally pushes them over the brink." Unless you can prove Loughner never heard this political vitriol and wasn't influenced by it, don't bother arguing the point.

For more on the subject, see Loughner Echoes Right-Wing Extremists and Words Don't Trigger Actions?!

A history of conservative hate speech

Are the examples of conservative vitriol noted in Political Vitriol in the Giffords Shooting, Debating Loughner's Influences, and Shooter Hits Palin's Target some sort of unusual or unplanned happenstance? No.

Preliminary report finds extensive use of hate speech on conservative talk radio

By Letisia MarquezThe study found that:

* Dehumanizing metaphors were used in 185 statements. Such metaphors evoked warfare, heroism, enemies, biblical characters, criminality, persecution and other representations.

* There were 77 instances of flawed argumentation, including ad hominem statements, guilt by association, and hidden assumptions or missing premises.

* Divisive language was used in 79 instances, in which individuals were presented in an "us versus them" framework as either supporting or opposing the show's worldview.

* 33 false statements were used to validate the hosts' points and to promote public opinion. A false statement is a simple falsehood, exaggerated statement or decontextualized fact that renders a statement misleading.A list of 116 examples of conservatives promoting violence against political opponents since 2008:

Insurrectionism TimelineOn June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association's contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become "tyrannical." The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued.A dozen examples from conservative campaigns in 2010:

Before Shooting, A Campaign Season Rife With Gun Rhetoric

Examples from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and other leading voices in the right-wing media:

Let's Get This Straight

Conservative cheerleader Ann Coulter alone has issued a plethora of hate-filled threats and wishes, as noted here:

Exclusive:  Conservative Group Denounces Ann Coulter!

Nor is this kind of vitriol anything new. Another seven examples from 1995 to 2002:

The Wrath of Fools:  An Open Letter to the Far Right

Of course, we've seen many examples of conservatives advocating hate and violence since 9/11: against Arabs, Muslims, terrorist suspects, anti-war activists, political dissenters, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and others. The list goes on and on.

Hate speech is conservative strategy

Nor is all this political vitriol just the random workings of the political marketplace. Rather, it's an intentional, calculated strategy by conservatives to demonize their opponents.

Hate Speech:  The Right’s Magic Bullet

By Michael WinshipThe fact is, it has been the right's goal to poison our political discourse for years. Remember the notorious “GOPAC Memo” back in the 1990’s, created for the Republicans’ leadership training institute and endorsed by Newt Gingrich? Titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” in it, candidates are instructed in what words to use when defining their opponents (i.e., liberals). "These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contract,” the memo said. “Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals, and their party” (in other words, demonize them).

Among them: intolerant… lie… pathetic… radical… sick… steal… traitors. Gingrich and his allies deliberately set out to employ toxic language against their opponents, and are still doing it. They will say anything to get a vote, especially now that the angriest and most irrational so often make up a majority of those who bother to go to the polls. This kind of talk is part and parcel of their strategy, and no matter what motivated the Tucson killings, it needs to stop.

Their lock and load rhetoric is reinforced by the rambling ranks of those who go on the Internet to spout any conspiracy theory, distortion of history or outright lie that helps them make it through the night. Add, too, the men and women of radio and television, the Limbaugh’s, Beck’s, and their ilk who use the airwaves as a cudgel, battering viewers and listeners with the certainty of their illogic, their thinly veiled messages of bigotry and meretricious embrace of Constitution, religion, flag and family.

All of them will huff and puff that this is an isolated incident by a madman that cannot be blamed on their bombast and bluster. But let’s call it out for what it is, let’s debate what in our gut we know to be true: even if it was not their intent, it’s likely the words of the right on radio and TV and in the books they publish spurred on the man who killed two and wounded six in a Knoxville, Kentucky, church in July 2008, and the murderer of George Tiller, one of the few doctors in America who still performed late-term abortions for women with problem pregnancies whose health was at stake from life-threatening complications, or whose infants would be born dead or dying. Their invective, whether inadvertently or not, has encouraged the vandalism and threats faced by so many of our candidates and elected officials, including the now desperately wounded Congresswoman Giffords. Her shooting, and the death and wounding of so many who came to meet with her are just the latest example of ideologically-motivated bloodshed.Nor did the vitriol begin with Gingrich's memo, alas. It goes back to Nixon's Southern strategy--painting Democrats as race traitors--and McCarthy-era witch hunts questioning the patriotism of liberals.

Conclusion

Conservatives are already arguing that their hate speech is no different from what liberals say about them. Great. I look forward to seeing the evidence of the violence and death threats issued by major Democratic politicians and pundits against Republicans and their families.

Repeat: major Democratic politicians and pundits, not random cranks and bloggers like me. Go through the writings of Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, Al Franken, et al. and find the instances where these people wished or threatened physical violence against their opponents.

I imagine conservatives already have collected and posted this evidence. So let's see the links, good buddies. I can take it if you can.

For more on the subject, see Sherrod Incident Shows Conservative Tactics and Any Excuse to Hate Obama.

Loughner echoes right-wing extremists

As the Giffords shooting story unfolded, it soon became apparent that this was an assassination attempt, not a random killing spree. Alleged killer Jared Lee Loughner knew Giffords's record and targeted her for it.

Here are some hints of Loughner's political "thinking." His YouTube videos:

ClassItUp10's Channel

Summing up Loughner's self-description: He's a military recruit, doesn't trust government officials, criticizes currency not backed by gold, says current laws are "treasonous," and admits he may fit definition of "terrorist."

But wait, there's more:

Suspect’s Odd Behavior Caused Growing Alarm

By Kirk Johnson, Serge F. Kovaleski, Dan Frosch, and Eric LiptonSome people who study right-wing militia groups and those who align themselves with the so-called Patriot movement said Mr. Loughner’s comments on subjects like the American currency and the Constitution, which he posted online in various video clips, were strikingly similar in language and tone to the voices of the Internet’s more paranoid, extremist corners.

In the text on one of the videos, for example, Mr. Loughner states, “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver.” He also argues that “the current government officials are in power for their currency” and he uses his videos to display text about becoming a treasurer of “a new money system.”

The position, for instance, that currency not backed by a gold or silver standard is worthless is a hallmark of the far right and the militia movement, said Mark Potok, who directs research on hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“That idea is linked closely to the belief among militia supporters that the Federal Reserve is a completely private entity engaged in ripping off the American people,” Mr. Potok said.

But Mr. Loughner also posits in his Web postings the idea that the government is seeking to control people through rules and structure of grammar and language.

This is similar to the position of David Wynn Miller, 62, a former tool-and-die welder from Milwaukee who describes himself as a “Plenipotentiary-judge” seeking to correct, through a mathematical formula, what he sees as the erroneous and manipulative use of grammar and language worldwide. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers Mr. Miller a conspiracy theorist, some of whose positions have been adopted by militias in general.

“The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” Mr. Loughner said in a video. He also defiantly asserted, “You control your English grammar structure.”

Mr. Miller, in an interview, said the argument sounded familiar. “He’s probably been on my Web site, which has been up for about 11 years,” Mr. Miller said. “The government does control the schools, and the schools determine the grammar and language we use. And then it is all reinforced by newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and everything we do in society.”

Law enforcement officials said they suspected that Mr. Loughner also might have been influenced by things like American Renaissance, a conservative magazine that describes itself as “America’s premiere publication of racial-realist thought.”

“We think that white Americans have an entirely legitimate reason to want to remain a majority in the United States because when a neighborhood or a school or an organization changes in demographics and becomes majority black or Hispanic, it is no longer the same institution or neighborhood,” said Jared Taylor, its editor.

He added, “It may be shocking to hear something stated so bluntly.”DHS Memo Suggests Shooter May Be Linked To Racist Organization

By Jennifer GriffinAccording to a law enforcement memo based on information provided by DHS and obtained by Fox News, Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, may have been influenced by a pro-white racist organization that publishes an anti-immigration newsletter.

No direct connection, but strong suspicion is being directed at American Renaissance, an organization that Loughner mentioned in some of his internet postings and federal law enforcement officials are investigating Loughner's possible links to the organization. The organization is a monthly publication that promotes a variety of white racial positions.

"The group's ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic," according to the memo which goes on to point out that Congressman Giffords is the first Jewish female elected to high office in Arizona. A recent posting on American Renaissance's website on January 7 begins with an article entitled: "Exit poll: Whites are Different." The site goes on to list anti-immigration articles. Investigators are also pursuing Loughner's alleged anti-Semitism.Comment:  What a shock to learn the alleged killer is a right-wing nut. That he's babbling about US currency and the gold standard exactly like Glenn Beck and other right-wing extremists. That's he's probably anti-government and anti-immigration like so many of today's right-wing bigots and hypocrites.

For more thinking like Loughner's, see Only Property Owners Should Vote?, Conservatives Hate Wikileaks and Indians, and Islamophobia Just Like Stephen's.

Debating Loughner's influences

To get the ball rolling on Facebook, I wrote:Who will be the first conservative to pin the blame on Obama, liberals, big government, or illegal immigrants? Any bets?This led to the following debate with Tom:As opposed to the first Huff Post blogger to pin it on Sarah Palin?Given that Palin posted a gunsight pointing at Giffords's district, that connection was easy to make. And rightly so. When Palin stokes "lock and load" hatred, we're going to call her on it. If you don't like, lump it.I guess you have a point. Besides being goaded by a gunsight metaphor political ad from months ago reading America by Heart and Going Rogue probably put him over the edge.

No, wait, it was Tea Party propaganda like The Communist Manifesto that he was reading. Never mind.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-lee-loughner-2011-1Palin's gunsight hatemongering is one of about a dozen examples of hypocrisy rampant among conservative Christians. They all contribute to the climate of fear and intimidation promoted by you and your fellow teabagger extremists.

Your stupid attempts to excuse Loughner are getting more pathetic by the minute. Why didn't you quote his entire reading list?I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.So he's well-read. So the hell what? There's no evidence of statist leanings in this list. Rather, there's evidence of anti-statist leanings. Which would put him squarely in the "I hate big government (except when conservatives make it bigger)" camp.

Okay for Christians to hate?

Better luck next time with your defense of un-Jesus-like hatemongering. I suggest you try reading the Bible and learning its message before you pretend to be a Christian.Where am I excusing Loughner? I would like to see that mass murderer's head on a pike. He may be crazy but he isn't insane. He could control his actions and he knew they were illegal (and if he knows to plead the Fifth, he's competent to stand trial). All I am saying is that if you HAVE to blame his capital murders on outside influences, you MIGHT want to start with the ones he ADMITS he has, NOT the ones you WISH he has.

Besides, whenever you call Tea Party activists "teabaggers" you just sound like a pathetic, out-of-tune rusty trombone.I summarized what we know of his views in Loughner Echoes Right-Wing Extremists. If you're ignorant of the facts, that's your problem, not mine. And I still couldn't care less that you don't like the term "teabagger."

Where have you excused Loughner? In this comment:Besides being goaded by a gunsight metaphor political ad from months ago reading America by Heart and Going Rogue probably put him over the edge.among others. And your silence on the issue of your party's hate rhetoric is telling.

Singling out The Communist Manifesto as if that were representative of Loughner's readings is another attempt to excuse his apparent dislike of government and government officials.

Now that you've ducked the religious issue I raised, why don't you address it? What do you think Jesus's position would be on the conservative gunsights and "reload" imagery? Take a guess.

More speculation

About the only major question left to answer is whether Loughner is a conservative Christian who hates Jews like Giffords. Judging by Loughner's reading of Mein Kampf, I'm guessing the answer is yes. His talk of the government's controlling the currency sounds suspiciously anti-Semitic.

Let's note that he also enjoyed the anti-Indian racism of Peter Pan and Brave New World. I think it's time for a reminder that all bigotries are similar. If you're prejudiced against one group, you're probably prejudiced against others.

For more on white conservative hate, see Teabaggers = Hatemongers and Klansmen, Militias, and Teabaggers.

Words don't trigger actions?!

Facebook friend John wrote a typical defense of conservative hatemongering:I'm not a fan of the left and most of my Constitutional views fall closer in line with the TEA party than with the GOP, but I don't want anyone gunned down in the street. I think it was a tragic opportunity for the extreme left to associate a horrible act of violence with the extreme right.Right, and no one ever acted because of something he read in the Bible or the Koran, either. Antisocial behavior materializes out of thin air and is totally unrelated to external sources.

Fact is that antisocial behavior always happens on the margins, so how you or I would respond isn't relevant. What's relevant is how external sources affect people who are intellectually or emotionally challenged.

The Giffords shooting provides a good opportunity to apply the thesis of "Such-and-Such Is Fiction" to a real-world example. Therefore, I continued with these sarcastic comments:

Neither the Bible nor the Koran ever influenced anyone. Same with speeches by Lincoln, Churchill, FDR, JFK, MLK, Reagan, et al. Same with right-wing hate speech. People's beliefs and actions materialize out of thin air for no discernible reason and are totally unconnected to external sources.

The 9/11 terrorists weren't influenced by hate speech similar to, but worse than, the hate speech used by today's conservatives. No, they killed 3,000 Americans for reasons unrelated to what they were programmed to believe by relentless hate-filled lies and propaganda.

Discuss.

"America = den of Zionists" and "Obama = Kenyan/Muslim/socialist/terrorist." Two examples of false propaganda designed to stoke fear and hate.

Rightist vs. leftist hate speech

John responded:I noticed you curiously left out "leftist hate speech" Do you not believe it exists or is it just more subtle since the NRA and most 2nd Amendment proponents lean to the right?There's a lot less of it than rightist hate speech. And it's more subtle, which means it's more like passionate political advocacy than hate speech.

Can you imagine Reagan saying Democrats such as Tip O'Neil threatened the American way of life or were a danger to the country? I can't.

P.S. My list included FDR, JFK, and MLK, so clearly I think liberal speech can affect people as much as conservative speech.

Someone named Windy chimed in:John, I'd love to hear an example of "leftist hate speech"...about the worst I've heard is name-calling, from the lefties. But...nothing like "take them out" or "second amendment remedies." As a moderate, I get annoyed with some of the rhetoric on the Left but I've never heard the type of hate-filled, violent, rhetoric that I've heard from the Right. :-\ Quite the chasm between violent and annoying.To preempt DMarks before he inevitably recycles his isolated and irrelevant "Bush = Hitler" counterexample, I added:

George W. Bush launched an illegal war based on false intelligence that has killed thousands of innocent people. When any Democratic politician does that, you have my permission to say nasty things about him or her. Until then, no.

For more on the subject, see Loughner Echoes Right-Wing Extremists and Debating Loughner's Influences.

Shooter hits Palin's target

The story that dominated the news Saturday was the murderous attack by suspect Jared Lee Loughner on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson). Not coincidentally, he targeted one of the liberal politicians on Sarah Palin's hit list:

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010Sarah Palin is targeting--yes, with gun sights--House Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform.

Palin's Facebook page now carries a map featuring 20 gun sights, one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.

Comment:  There's no truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin updated her website to say: "One down, 16 more to go."

Palin to Giffords: "We meant to target and shoot you only with rhetorical bullets. We want you to die and rot in hell only rhetorically."

No, what Palin actually said was this:

Sarah Palin issues statement on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shooting

What she probably meant to say was this:When I showed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a gun sight, I meant it metaphorically. But if real Americans exercise their right to bear and fire guns, that's okay too. Anyone who isn't carrying a concealed weapon runs the risk of getting shot.Hilarious that Palin took the offending graphic down immediately but there's supposedly nothing wrong with it. The hypocritical party of "taking personal responsibility" strikes again.



For more on Palin's hatemongering, see Racist Rhetoric Fuels Hate Crimes and Palin:  Racism Is a Ploy.