I’m sure that seemed like a good idea at the time…

Look back to the massive housing financial fraud. After greed, the next biggest reason it all happened was because people didn’t want to do the work (or, in some cases, couldn’t do the work) to understand what they were getting into. It was easier to trust a ratings agency, the friendly banker guy, the ever growing housing prices (10% year over year? When it had only been doing 0.7% year over year?)

In the case of the housing destruction it was that quest for a single number without thinking (in that case, the AAA rating for securities). In politics, you first split so you can assume more things. I’ve seen quotes here in Florida like, “Yes, I know [Rick Scott] is a criminal and a fraud – but he’s Republican, so I’m voting for him”.

People want things nice and tidy. They don’t want messes, they don’t want complication. Give ‘em clear steps and assurance that they are helping “fight the evils” and you are good to go.

There are people here who agree with you and think perhaps the Second Amendment is a bit outdated, but we’re always overshadowed by people who aren’t willing to give up that right. I’d rather not have the right to own a gun and help prevent violence throughout the rest of the country, but most people don’t feel that way.

I’ll grant that in the US, there are tremendous political, media and cultural forces driving us toward simplification and polarization. We have a 2 party political system whose leaders pander to the activists in their party to get nominated, then find themselves being held to extreme campaign promises. News media compete to be first with a story even when the story is still unfolding and the facts aren’t all available. This is quickly followed by the drive to cast the story into simple labels, such as “lone nut” or “right wing nut”, and facts become almost irrelevant to the narrative. Then the pundits chime in with using the story as a prop for their agendas and the narratives they want to push. The mock-editorial “Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics” (re-posted here earlier this morning) captures captures the thinking and tone of our many of our “thought leaders”.

Considering the rampant anti-intellectualism (the previous occupant of the White House put voice to a common attitude when he said “I don’t do nuance”), and the Manichean world-view among many Christians in the US, I’m glad there are forums such Boing Boing where we can “do nuance” and have a civil discussion about these issues.

/dusts off hands; goes back to work.

1. It is human to seek patterns in events. It may even be an evolutionary advantage.

2. Sometimes, a cigar really *just is* a cigar. But usually, it’s a phallic symbol being smoked by a dick.

If a prominent Mormon is shot tomorrow, do you think it’s reasonable to start posting that West Hollywood Fuck the Mormons sign and all the Prop 8 vitriol and hate speech so as to, without any evidence, blame gay activists for the shooting? I don’t. But no time was wasted doing it in this case. Admittedly, politics is bigger theater than my example. But I think the point has validity.

It’s early in the Giffords case. The guy reads like a loon. But we may yet discover he WAS driven to a “righteous kill” by political hot talk. Time and evidence will tell.

“He is fond of “Animal Farm”; George Orwell didn’t guide the hand that pulled the automatic pistol’s trigger.”

Where did the shooter get an “automatic pistol”? I think the word automatic was chosen to ignite/incite gun rights debate – or the reporter is uninformed. I would be very surprised if it was an automatic pistol – semi-auto maybe, which is legal to own (for good or ill). Guns can be terrible, dangerous things, to be sure. But that genie is not going back in the bottle any time soon. There are just too many, and like the constitutionally-protected speech on this very page, their ‘well-regulated’ use is a part of the national fabric.

Remember, like the bumper sticker said:

“Guns kill people like the spoon made Rosie O’Donnell fat.”

That being said, I am appalled at the lax carry laws on the books in Arizona and some other states. A license to carry a weapon of any sort should have the same gravity AT LEAST as being allowed to drive a car. Automobiles are of course a much bigger threat to life and limb on a statistical basis, and in my sad personal experiences. If people would like to help keep guns out of the hands of rights-abusers like this shooter, contact your state officials and demand that they enforce the laws already on the books; and strengthen the concealed-carry requirements, which can even vary from county to county within a state.

Clearly, in light of what’s happened, it’s eminently regrettable art direction and in tragically poor taste. It won’t be approved again by any campaign manager.

I want to believe that’s true but this is hardly the first time there was an assassination attempt against an American politician during a period of bitter partisan discourse.

water-carrying fail.

Whatever it takes to turn what so far appears to be a lone wolf into a rogue elephant.

This would be a far more interesting observation if people hadn’t been noticing, talking about, and generally decrying the steady increase in violent rhetoric for quite some time, and the increase in violent actions that has accompanied it.

Are you really so blinded by the “my side is being persecuted!” reaction that you are unable to see the point? Are you only capable of breaking the discourse down as a conflict between two political ideologies?

I would also add that both the right and the left have been guilty of this, ‘though I find the blame for the current extremist tone of to lie solely with the political right. Crosshairs, references to reloading and to “taking back” OUR Constitution must be “refudiated”.

People have guns = people kill people.

“Oh but he’s a nut job”, every time someone does this, is NOT a reason for the population at large to have guns.

Excuse me, but DUH.

The characteristics of right wing speech, involving intense emotion, rigid adherence to doctrine and rampant counter-factual propaganda should be red flags to any fan of civil discussion. That kind of speech, while legal and protected, as speech should be, is irresponsible and can create a culture of demonization where your opponents are no longer seen as human. Indeed, in the conservative worldview, any opposition to that worldview is seen as inherently immoral.

When you think you are always right and everyone else is always wrong, you need to do a little intellectual soul searching.

Also, I will consider the unfairness of targeting rightwingers, when someone posts links to similar violent rhetoric used by the left even half as often as it is used by the right.