Not necessarily about the shooting...

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I notice that many of you, surprisingly, are against speculation. I say surprisingly because when you tell us how bad speculation is, it seems to be immediately before or immediately after you have speculated about something.

Next time elections come around, how about banning posts here about who might win and who might do what if they win?

In a week or so, when your buddies are talking about who they think will win the NFC championship, tell them to shut-up - wait until the game is played.

Can we get a petition going to have the weather channel shut down?

The point is - speculation drives journalism, it drives this community, it drives bullshit cooler talk, it's why the barbershop isn't quiet.

Regarding the shooting, I speculate that they aren't exactly going to put this guy in front of Barbara Walters or Bill O'Reilly to explain his motives. I want to know why he did what he did just as much as all you, but do you really think they will give him a stage to share his story with the world?

You're going to speculate in your head, and that shit is going to come out of your mouth and/or fingers. Don't fight it. Make your claims, and if you have time - tell us how you got there. If you don't have time - just reply with 'you just don't get it do you?' if someone hints that you could be wrong.

My thoughts on the Giffords shooting are along this way of thinking:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12150161
( cut for FLs )

I think that the only difference with this last one is that now that a Congresswoman, a Jewish Democrat, was targeted by a schizophrenic Neo-Nazi people pay a little more attention.
 

After some DeLay, sentencing handed down

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well, in name at least. DeLay has been sentenced to serve 3 years for his money laundering which allowed Republicans to take over the Texas house. Actually, he was charged 3 years for conspiracy. He would have 5 years for his money laundering but the judge switched it for 10 years probation. Oh and he may not have to serve those 3 years any time soon either. The judge allowed him to go on 10k bond to allow for appeal. -appeal that could take years of deLays. For DeLay's part, he still claims he did nothing wrong.

The prosecutor is quoted as saying "He has shown no remorse, no remorse whatsoever... The man, according to him, does nothing wrong. He needs to go to prison, Your Honor, and he needs to go today. If he gets probation," Brandt said, "and those people who read the newspaper tomorrow ... will say, 'I told you. He wears a tie, he gets probation.' I'm going to use a quote from Alexander Hamilton," he said. "'No one is above the law.'"

So here I am today saying 'He wears a tie, he gets probation.' I mean thank god he wasn't caught for marijuana possession while being poor or something.

There was one more point I wanted to mention. This is an issue of corruption. Its an issue of a rich greedy person. This issue is not a partisan issue (besides the consequences of having the Texas legislature taken over, allowing for Republican controlled redistricting and the subsequent election of Republicans to the house of representatives, but this in and of itself isnt a crime). Just because he's a republican doesn't mean you have to automatically jump to his defense. He done a bad thing.

Exhausted by the tragedy, but still feel i have something to say..

[blorky.livejournal.com]

There's a great line in "The Way of the Gun" where a character says "20 million dollars isn't money - it’s a motivation with an all purpose adapter." It can be modified into a useful truth by saying "Religion is a motivation with an all purpose adapter." Religion is the underlying motive for MLK and those dedicated to undercutting his cause, to Paul Farmer and Muqtada al-Sadr, for Rabbi Joseph Eckstein and Khairallah Talfah. Religion provides the basis for the purpose of your choice.

Crazy is the reverse. It's a purpose looking for a motivation. When all is said and done, I think we'll discover that Jared Lee Loughner's issue was some bum luck with genetics, bad neurochemistry, drug abuse that was the result of trying to self medicate, and potentially a handful of physical or sexual abuse. That he latched on to some incoherent mashup of gold standard and Constitutionalist rhetoric doesn't mean that those discussions were understood rationally in any meaningful way. That the Army wouldn't accept him at a time when they seem to be accepting anyone says to me that their testing showed he was gay or psychotic, and I'd bet on the latter.

There's no way of knowing whether the famous bullseye map provided input into this kid's plans. I think that if Loughner was living in Nowhere, IA, he'd shoot up the local town meeting instead of this Congressman's town hall meeting. While it's fair to say that the bullseye map was bad politics, there have been similar maps/"targeting" rhetoric from the DCCC. The imagery isn't as explicit, but I think that's because it doesn't appeal to the left's base, not because the DCCC has any greater reluctance to use inappropriate strategies.

It's also not useful to say that the bullseye imagery shouldn't be used because it can prompt borderline psychotics to act out. There is no reasonable way to restrict one's speech so that you'll never provide the adapter for crazy people. That thinking also bans "Catcher in the Rye" and Jodie Foster.

It IS fair to say that the bullseye imagery was bad politics. It used the language and rhetoric that appeals to it's base in a way to make them feel more powerful (as does the "second amendment remedies" rhetoric) without improving the quality of the discussion. Again, both sides do this, but the language used when promoting inappropriate solutions is keyed to appeal to the base, and the Left's base doesn't respond to the same thing that the Right does.

On the other hand, I do think that some of the excessive rhetoric will be scaled back because this incident will promote a self-imposed chilling effect based on fear of a media backlash, not because of any genuine desire to improve the debate. 19 round magazines will be restricted in a flurry of self-rightousness, to no effect on the broader issues of spree killers or crime in general. While I'm a RKBA advocate, the loss of 19 round magazines doesn't feel like much of a burden. Time will tell what other restrictions will come of this.

Seeing as I've simplified both religion and psychosis into elegant aphorisms, it's also worth doing the same to politics. The first thread on CNN that reported on the shooting had comments from people CERTAIN that the killer was

- a liberal
- a Tea Partier
- an immigrant
- a birther
- a lesbian
- a radical Islamist
- an anti-immigrationist
- an open carry advocate
- a gay person
- an FPS addict
- an atheist

The eye brings what it sees to seeing, indeed. It would also be nice if there were a self-imposed chilling effect on the desire to fit all stories into the narrative you want to be true.

(no subject)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I think a break from the events in Arizona is in order. That being the case I found this interesting.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2011/01/low_support_for_ethnic_quotas_in_schools_2274876.html

The Finnish government is trying to work out a better ethic balance in Finland's schools but is finding a lot of resistance to the idea of ethnic quotas.

While the goals I are good I've never been a fan of the idea that you can create diversity just by setting quotas and such. It just creates resentment and seems rooted in the idea that osmosis is some great cure all. I think this is a situation where the government would be better off just letting class make up be what it will be rather than meddling.

(no subject)

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?