Conspiracy

Not Only Did the Climate of Hate Influence Jared Loughner, Denying That Truism Is "Actively dangerous"

|

This cover makes me uncomfortable

So says Chapman University Associate English Professor Tom Zoellner, author of a new book called A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us About the Grand Canyon State and Life in America. In an excerpt reprinted column published by Zócalo Public Square under the misleading headling "Who Shot Gabrielle Giffords?&tag=reasonmagazinea-20″ (I say "misleading" because we learn exactly nothing about the not-irrelevant man who pulled the trigger), Zollner argues that after all, it was you and me…but mostly you:

The months leading up to the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords were unusually paranoid ones. I saw the tension up close, because Tucson is my hometown, and I worked on my friend Gabrielle's campaign as a speechwriter, watching as her face was all over television and outdoor ads portraying her as the embodiment of a government that was wrecking the local economy. There was a feeling in Tucson that I did not recognize.

Much has been made of the website put up by Sarah Palin's political action committee (with target markets over the districts of vulnerable Democrats, including Gabrielle's) and the newspaper ad for her opponent calling on his supporters to help him shoot an M-16 at a fundraiser. I think these gestures are unimportant in themselves—in dubious taste but certainly not the motivating reason why the paranoid schizophrenic Jared Loughner brought a gun to the Safeway with the intention of assassinating Gabrielle.

What they were, though, were symptoms of the larger causes of Tucson's unease: a fragile economy, a fear of illegal immigrants, a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason, and the disconnected neighborhoods of newcomers where loneliness festers and lack of concern for one's neighbor becomes a habit. This is the environment in which the punitive and ridiculous law SB 1070 was passed, requiring local police to demand the immigration papers of anybody they stop who appears to fit a suspicious profile—such as a Latino who happened to dress down that day.

Loughner was suffering from a grave mental illness, but he was not living in a world made entirely of his own delusions. He could still hear and see what surrounded him, and those surroundings helped him formulate a plot against a specific target: Gabrielle Giffords, who, besides the president, may have been the most reviled public face in Tucson that year. The slime was directed at her personally, but it was only a convenient channel for the fear that the American dream was lost and that a crisis was at hand. […]

Dismissing Loughner as a random "black swan," free of all antecedents or influences, is worse than facile or lazy. It is actively dangerous, for it allows us to ignore the contributing human context, which is something we can change.

One of many problems with this line of argument is that you can, at any given point, always find larger indices of "unease," toxic political debates, and "disconnected neighborhoods of newcomers." I am trying to imagine any period of American history where those descriptions would not apply. So do we pin partial blame for the L.A. arsonist on our maddening immigration process? Do we blame every crime at or near an Occupy encampment on overheated anti-capitalist rhetoric? No, we (and here I mean most of us, as opposed to commentators who have become debased by partisanship) do not.

Reason's April 2011 issue was largely devoted to this topic; for those interested, start with "The Loughner Panic," continue to my column "Against 'Incitement,'" and wash it all down with Jesse Walker's classic essay on "The Paranoid Center."

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: Newt Goes Negative, Ron Paul Crosses His Fingers, FDA Predicts Adderall Shortage Through 2012

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chapman University Associate English Professor Tom Zoellner.

    1. Haven’t been there for 10 years but Tucson was one of the friendliest places I’ve ever lived. Things change but this article seems like a faith-based appeal to slay zombies only the properly informed can see.

      OT but I assume he teaches at the Chapman University extension at Davis-Monthan AFB (their main campus is in CA). I spent several wonderful years there in the 90’s teaching comp-sci courses. Back then there were only a handful of full-time faculty–I personally only knew one–but I can’t assume it has grown much.

      1. Actually, Chapman University has grown a lot, now enrolling more than 6000 undergrads and offering graduate programs, including law. Zoellner is a new hire this year in my department and a sign of the university’s healthy growth, especially over the last decade. Other recent hires include a Nobel Laureate and a Medal of Science winner. I’m glad to be a part of this institution and a great group of full-time faculty.

  2. Trueism? Really?

  3. Sympathy for the DevilLoughner?

  4. It’s a fair cop, but society is to blame.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…..yIsToBlame

    1. Right, we’ll be charging them too.

  5. Who says Associate English professors aren’t relevant?

  6. Episiarch|1.8.11 @ 2:39PM
    Fuck the politician.

    joshua corning|1.8.11 @ 2:54PM
    American Politicians are killing American citizens today. Why should I know and care about a congresswoman’s death?

    Episiarch|1.8.11 @ 3:38PM
    Too bad. I don’t give a shit about a politician.

    Warty|1.8.11 @ 7:47PM
    Fuck off. Did you expect us to give a shit about some shitbag politician?

    1. Your point being?

      There are words, and then there are acts. Being unable to distinguish the two is a sign of either mental illness or simple immaturity.

      1. She has no point other than her infantile rage.

        1. Looks like the commentators cited were the ones with the rage.

          1. The commentators didn’t shoot Giffords.

            1. You can have rage (specifically, “infantile rage”) and not shoot anybody. That’s what chat rooms are for. But you know that.

              1. Uh, sure.

                Have we met? In person?

          2. I have rage. It is barely suppressed.

            Let me know when it became somehow illegal or immoral to have rage.

            Despite owning several firearms – including a scary, so-called “assault weapon” and a “high-powered” hunting rifle, as well as scary “automatic” handguns, I have yet to shoot anyone. Nor do I have any plans to.

            1. Don’t play her game, BSR.

              1. What do we have to do to get a better class of troll around here?

                1. Can we ask Tony to let Chad out of the basement?

                2. Shoot, I don’t know.

                  1. Shoot, I don’t know.

                    Eliminationist rhetoric!!11!one!

                3. Um…become a better class of commentator?

                  1. Doesn’t seem to matter. Seems they’re not just trolls; they’re just here to shit on whatever anyone else is doing.

                4. What do we have to do to get a better class of troll around here?

                  Registration will help. It will at least put some “price” on name-hopping to avoid the filters. Of course, to take care of the really obsessed lunatics–you know, the ones that feel compelled to post irrelevant whiny comments on every thread–maybe put a throttle so that a range of IPs can only have 20 or registrations before all the handles on that range get permabanned.

                  Godesky, Max, this morphing-handle insult griefer (and the psycho that runs it), and the Anti-Paul spambot contribute absolutely nothing to the board.

                  1. I blame threaded comments.

                    1. I blame threaded comments.

                      I blame the obsessed shitbags doing it. Dan T. trolled the living fuck out of this board years before threading.

                      The loser still does, of course, he’s just more careful now.

                    2. Wow. I didn’t realize I was omnipotent.

                    3. I have read all the replies, and I believe every one of you has a legitimate grievance. Please contact the Reason Foundation Grievance Board @ (310) 391-2245. Thank you.

                    4. Threading makes it much worse.

                5. FOR A MAGAZINE CALLED REASON, IT SURPRISES THE URKOBOLD HOW UNFAMILIAR ITS EDITORS ARE WITH THE CONCEPT OF PROTECTION MONEY TROLL INSURANCE.

                6. I could reemerge.

                  1. As could I.

            2. BSR, does this “hunting rifle” have any kind of optics? If it does, then the current MSM approved term for it is “sniper rifle.”

              1. Actually, it would not be incorrect to refer to it as a sniper rifle. It’s a bolt-action .308 and indeed has a scope and a folding bipod. Not only that, it has a heavy barrel designed for greatly improved accuracy at longer distances. It’s a tack driver. A buddy of mine put three rounds in smaller than 1/2″ group at 100 yards.

                1. three rounds in smaller than 1/2″ group at 100 yards

                  So, what we lifelong Michiganderanians refer to as a “good deer rifle”. Excellent! My dad’s Remington 1903 (30-06) will do that 🙂

                  PS Of course, the 1903 was created as….waaaaaaaaaaaaait for it…..A SNIPERRIFLEZOMGSHITFUCKSCARY!

                  1. O3 A4s were the sniper variant. I have an A3 made by Smith Corona. Badass weapon. My dad gave it to me for a Christmas present when I was 18.

    2. Re: Greatest Hits:

      1. This is relevant… how?

      2. It’s just a matter of time until some left-wing nutcase tries to harm one of their enemies, so you might want to consider that.

      1. You know who was a left-wing nutcase who tried to harm their enemies?

        1. Episiarch?

        2. This sounds familiar… gosh, name’s on the tip of my tongue…

        3. Lee Harvey Oswald?

        4. Bill Ayers?

          1. Clarice Starling?

        5. President Obama?

        6. That German Arsonist in LA?

          1. Everyone knows that Oswald was a stooge for the anti-Castro right wing Cubans under contract to the CIA and the Chamber of Commerce.

            As for Ayers, he was either a minor figure not worth mentioning, or if that doesn’t work, I’ll think up some sort of theory to make him right-wing.

          2. Pol Pot?

            1. Che Guevara?

              1. Hillary Clinton?

                1. Greenpeace tree nailers?

                  1. According to shrike, spiking trees and setting fire to Hummers are not violent acts, because 100% of such acts are committed by people on the 50.0001% side of the left/right spectrum.

        7. “You know who was a left-wing nutcase who tried to harm their his enemies?”

          You’re welcome.

          1. Grammar Griever

            Grammar makes her sad.

            1. You know who else was sad about grammar…

          2. “”You know who was a left-wing nutcase who tried to harm their his enemies?”

            You’re welcome.”

            And you’re correcting something that wasn’t wrong.

            Fuck off and die now.

            1. God some leftover pancakes would be great right about now! After a long day thinking about the Indian side of Cowboys and Indians there’s nothing better than some rewarmed pancakes…stacks and stacks of them…..with a little ice cold grape juice. Oh yeah…a couple syringes of fresh insulin to wash the whole mess down really is the cherry on the Sundae!

      2. Barely Suppressed Rage|1.3.12 @ 10:41AM
        Your point being?

        Mr. FIFY|1.3.12 @ 10:42AM
        This is relevant… how?

        SugarFree|1.3.12 @ 10:43AM
        She has no point other than her infantile rage.

        Stimulus and response.
        Me Pavlov, you dogs.

        1. Oh, shit. Godesky has awakened.

          1. Jason Godesky is a software engineer, currently employed by Vivisimo, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is also the founder of the Tribe of Anthropik, and an advocate of the New Tribal Revolution. His educational background is in anthropology and computer science.

            Jason Godesky is not related to Dr. Mary T. Godesky, MD., who practices orthopedic surgery in Kingston, New York.

            1. His educational background is in grievance studies and bullshit theory.

              FIFY’d. No charge.

              1. Sounds like you’re the one with the grievance.

                1. Contact Vivisimo

                  We would love to hear from you. Please contact us using the information below or complete our online contact form:

                  US – Headquarters
                  1710 Murray Avenue
                  Pittsburgh, PA 15217 USA
                  Tel: +1 412 422 2499
                  Fax: +1 412 422 2495
                  info@vivisimo.com

            2. Jason Godesky is not related to Dr. Mary T. Godesky, MD., who practices orthopedic surgery in Kingston, New York.

              Why do I suspect that someone got an injunction against someone else?

              1. Or a restraining order, maybe?

        2. You’ve proven that you can be an annoying cunt. Break out the champagne!

          1. You’re drooling again. Here’s a napkin.
            Who’s a good boy? You are!

            1. Is my Rectal showing?

          2. Whoever you are, thanks for pointing out the annoying cuntness of Jason Godesky.

            1. What am I, chopped liver?

              1. Me too! Me too!

              2. Orthopedic surgeon… are you a liver chopper?

                1. I’ve never heard of me.
                  Who am I, and why am I supposedly famous?

        3. Who let the dogs out?

      3. You should know better than to talk to her by now.

        1. Fetch!
          Who’s a good boy? You are!

          1. I don’t get it. People are predictable because they disagree w/ your characterization of them? If I go to Jezebel and post that she deserved it, why was she walking in the dark alley, etc, they will respond unkindly and w/ the opposite point. Doesn’t prove anything but a website demographic…congrats?

            1. I don’t get it.

              I can see that.

    3. Why should we care about what happens to some arsehole politician?

  7. Are you suggesting that Sarah Palin’s mouth doesn’t literally fire bullets?

    1. Sarah Palin needs one of those bras like Ursula Andress wore in The 10th Victim

      1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGB34S8hCs

        UA pulls the trigger at about 2:10.

        1. Machine-gun jubblies? Yeah, baby!

    2. Crosshairs! It had fucking CROSSHAIRS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

        1. No, the MAP, dammit, the MAP! Palin’s internet map was a blatant act of VIOLENT RHETORIC which was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE not only for the Giffords shooting, but also for the RAMPANT and UNWARRANTED use of ALL CAPS in many internet blog comments.

          1. However you are [[NEGLECTING]] sufficient use of {{brackets}}.

          2. The map had nipples drawn all over it?

  8. a fragile economy,
    Blame Bush.
    a fear of illegal immigrants,
    Blame talk radio
    a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason,
    Blame talk radio
    and the disconnected neighborhoods of newcomers where loneliness festers and lack of concern for one’s neighbor becomes a habit.
    Blame libertarians.

    It is actively dangerous, for it allows us to ignore the contributing human context, which is something we can change.

    Kill Bush, kill Rush Limbaugh, kill libertarians.

    Liberals are so tolerant and inclusive.

    1. a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason….

      What you all need to realize is that “reason” is what I say it is, and you all know where I stand on the matter.

  9. “Dismissing Loughner as a random “black swan,” free of all antecedents or influences, is worse than facile or lazy. It is actively dangerous, for it allows us to ignore the contributing human context, which is something we can change.”

    True, and we can start by bowdlerizing anything that has contributed to insanity

    1. television and outdoor ads
    2. Any movie with Jodie Foster
    3. Mondays

      1. Error 404. Much like most of your arguments.

    1. Rather, you forgot “Catcher in the Rye”. That book is murderous.

      1. Yeah. Why the hell wasn’t Salinger ever tried for Lennon’s murder?

      2. I thought that was one of the worst bookd I’ve ever read. I really don’t get the popularity of it. I found it quite uninteresting.

        1. Agreed. I sucks.

            1. but my favorite books are Vanity Fair & Pride and Prejudice, and all of you probably think they suck too

              1. I’m just happy to not have read them 🙂

  10. Rainy days and Mondays always get me down.

    1. Yeah, I don’t like Mondays either.

  11. Remembering back to when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad killed William Long outside the Army recruiting center here in my hometown of Little Rock a couple years ago. I’m sure Prof. Zoellner would agree he was most likely influenced by all the “anti-troops” sentiment that exists here in the South.

    1. …and the Ft. Hood shooting was recategorized as a “workplace violence” incident…

      1. Creating a hostile work environment, no doubt.

        1. Well, it’s all that right-wing* rhetoric that causes hostile work environments, don’tchaknow.

          * as in “anything that isn’t left-wing rhetoric”.

  12. “Needlin’,” a new form of racial terrorism, has struck New York City streets on the tony Upper West Side. At least 39 white women have been stuck with used hypodermic needles -perhaps infected with AIDS- by gangs of black girls.

  13. Loughner is not much different than the huge anti-government paranoid militia movement personified by the Hutaree and Tim McVeigh/Unabomber types. The FBI just indicted four Georgia men who were plotting attacks against the government and all four were on some combination of Social Security and Dept of Ag benefits. The more geographically isolated they are the more likely they dream up conspiracies.

    1. Way to leave out all *left*-wing violence, shrike…

    2. Care to tell us how the Unabomber was right-wing?

      1. Uh, because I spend the first half of my manifesto ranting against “leftists” and “liberals”?

        1. Which does not prove he was right-wing. I rant against leftists and liberals all the time, but I’m not right-wing.

          Although I could see blowing up certain people… hmm…

          1. So, BSR… it was you who set off Loughner! Cop to it now, and you’ll be on CNN by this afternoon!

    3. Loughner is not much different than the huge anti-government paranoid militia movement personified by the Hutaree and Tim McVeigh/Unabomber types.

      Except that there is ZERO evidence that Loughner was motivated by anything political or related to the government at all. The people who knew him said he didn’t watch much TV or news and didn’t show much interest in politics.

      He is a paranoid schizophrenic. His actions will not make rational sense. He didn’t shoot Gifford out of some right-wing – or left-wing – anti-government paranoia. He shot her because his brain chemistry is fucked up and he was unable to correctly interpret reality.

      1. Agree that he acted out of lunacy – but it had a feeder ingot.

        http://blogs.reuters.com/great…..-standard/

        1. STILL leaving out all left-wing violence, shrike?

          1. I acknowledge the anti-Vietnam War groups and the Monkey Wrench gang – who normally targeted structures.

            And the guys that bombed the campus building in Minnesota circa 1969.

            1. Wow… that’s where your history of left-wing violence stops? 1969?

              1. Fill me in on left wing POLITICAL violence since 1975.

                And riots over police injustice does not count (Rodney King).

                1. Hundreds of acts of arson committed by ELF, the unibomber to name two.

                  But outside the US there was this little regime called the Khmer Rouge who committed a few acts of violence.

                  1. ELF – burning Hummers and spiking trees?

                    OK. BFD. That is all you have.

                    Meanwhile the militia nuts are going wild.

                    1. Unibomber Shreik. And burning shit down has a way of killing people.

                    2. ELF – burning Hummers and spiking trees?

                      OK. BFD. That is all you have.

                      Meanwhile the militia nuts are going wild.

                      They’re burning a little more than Hummers, shrike.

                    3. And then there were several of these:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing

                      The Sterling Hall Bombing that occurred on the University of Wisconsin?Madison campus on August 24, 1970 was committed by four young people as a protest against the University’s research connections with the US military during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death of a university physics researcher and injuries to three others.

                    4. So, burning Hummers and spiking trees /= violent acts? Because they’re inanimate objects, right?

                2. And the people of Peru would also like to have a word with you Shriek.

                3. The dozens of bombings in NYC throughout the 1970s by the Borricua Army, a leftist Puerto Rican separatist group.

                  1. Here is a short list of BPA’s left-wing political violence post-1975 (from the Wiki).
                    On August, 1978, the group accepted responsibility for the murder of San Juan police officer Julio Rodr?guez Rivera while attempting to steal his police car.

                    In 1979, two attacks were made on unarmed US Navy technicians. In the first, on December 3, Macheteros opened fire on a bus carrying sailors to Naval Security Group Activity Sabana Seca, killing CTO1 John R. Ball and RM3 Emil E. White, as well as wounding nine others. A second attack, on off-duty sailors returning from liberty, killed one and wounded three. The attack was in retaliation for the murder in a prison of a member of the Macheteros by the prison guards who were retired Marines.

                    On January 12, 1981, in the Luis Mu?oz Mar?n International Airport attack, Machetero commandos infiltrated the Puerto Rico Air National Guard’s Mu?iz Air National Guard Base, located on the northeastern corner of the Luis Mu?oz Mar?n International Airport in San Juan. The infiltrators destroyed or damaged ten A-7 Corsair II light attack aircraft and a single F-104 Starfighter supersonic fighter-interceptor aircraft. Total damages were estimated to be in excess of $45 million in 1981 US dollars. The subsequent investigation concluded security at the base was so lax that the attackers managed to enter and depart the base without ever being detected. The attack later served as the basis for upgrading base security, especially flight line security, at all Air National Guard installations on civilian airports in the United States to the same level as active duty U.S. Air Force installations.

                    On September 12, 1983, in an operation entitled ?guila Blanca (White Eagle) the group assaulted the Wells Fargo depot located in West Hartford, Connecticut stealing a total of seven million dollars. After the robbery, the Macheteros threw some of the stolen money into the air from high floor buildings and used most of the remaining sum to fund their continued operations. According to a written statement from the Macheteros, the action was a symbolic protest against the “greed-infested men and mechanisms which strain our elected officials, government agencies, and social aspirations in this country, as well as in Puerto Rico.” Under Puerto Rico, US and international law, the act was categorized as terrorism due to the way it was executed, the organization’s stated motives and the trauma suffered by the Wells Fargo security guards. The criminal charges filed against the participants in this robbery include: Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Robbery of Federally Insured Bank Funds, Armed Robbery, and Conspiracy to Interfere With Commerce By Robbery.

                    In 1998, Los Macheteros claimed responsibility for an explosion at a small power station in the San Juan metropolitan area. The explosion caused limited power outages.

                    1. Here is the mission statement of the BPA (formerly known as the FALN – Fuerzas Armadas de Liberaci?n Nacional):
                      Directing the armed and political struggle in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist principle of a broad front including a popular sectors willing to [join] the armed struggle right away

                      Agglutination of all forces based upon the principle of coordination between political work and military work under the leadership of a party composed of combatants assigned to different tasks

                      Application of the principle of internal ideological debate, a study of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the use of criticism and self-criticism

                      Implementation of the Stalinist ideological position on the concept of “nation” with regard to American reality

                      Application of the principle of the priority of the struggle for independence of Puerto Rico over any question of internal solidarity, demanding concrete support for our armed struggle as a priority matter in the international struggle against colonialism

                      So, yeah, Shriek you are either being disingenuous or ignorant when claiming a dearth of left-wing violence.

                    2. Also, those members of FALN/BPA convicted of those NYC bombings were pardoned by Clinton in 1999.

                    3. Classic Liberalism has won over the USA, pal.

                      (Capitalism/Secularism/democracy.)

                      Its the right-wing nutjobs who fight it.

                      If an Iranian liberal were to take out the mullahs in Iran it means nothing to the USA.

                    4. shrike|1.3.12 @ 12:56PM|#
                      “Classic Liberalism has won over the USA, pal.
                      (Capitalism/Secularism/democracy.)”
                      Shriek, that *ain’t* classic liberalism.

                      “Its the right-wing nutjobs who fight it.”
                      So you can’t read all that stuff just above your post?

                    5. Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is much more like modern libertarianism.

                      Pal.

                4. Oh, so it only counts if it’s “political” violence.

                  Good. To. Know.

    4. The more geographically isolated they are the more likely they dream up conspiracies.

      Unlike all those sophisticated urban intellectuals, right?

      1. Bill Ayers was from rural Alabama. He lived in a shack with an outhouse.

        The other Weatherman/Weathergirl terrorists lived in the Aryan Nations compound in rural Idaho. They only pretended to be urban leftists in order to scapegoat the peace-loving progressive community.

      2. 9/11 was an inside job…

      3. Yeah, “geographically isolated” is an overstep me thinks…

        Maybe more accurate to just use “isolated” as indeed one can go to work at a full-time job in a large metropolitan area and still keep themselves isolated, psychologically speaking, should they so choose….

    5. Social Security and Dept of Ag benefits

      So we can blame government welfare benefits for generating conspiracies. I always figured as much.

  14. A successful Pat Buchanan candidacy would be wonderful. Buchanan’s message will be the strongest libertarian-type campaign in decades.

    1. I voted for Buchanan in the ’92 primary. He was a lot better than Daddy Bush.

  15. Loughner is not much different than the huge anti-government paranoid militia movement

    Other than not sharing any of their beliefs, that is.

    1. Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual & potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

    2. Well, he has two legs, and so do they! See?

    3. Or, not being at all related.

    4. The paranoid psychosis is the same.

      The militia movement is mentally unstable.

      1. What militia movement? Or have you been reading that ridiculous Southern Poverty Law website again?

        1. SPLC thinks anyone who ever put a Ron Paul sign in their yard = dangerous domestic insurgent.

          Or, to filter it down simpler: Anyone who doesn’t vote Team Blue.

  16. This perfesser evidently knows jack squat about the history of presidential elections in the U.S. and criticisms of the president and politicans.

    It began with the very first president. All you have to do is a little research on the stuff that the anti-federalists said about George Washington and John Adams – it was pretty aggressive stuff. And “civil discourse” didn’t really improve at all after that.

    Why do these idiot fucking progressives and lefties have such a hard time grasping the simple concept that sometimes a lone nutter does nutty things for no reason, because the nutter is a fucking nutter?

    1. On the streets, black crime against whites is the norm, with some of it even justified as “fighting the power.”

      1. I thought the fucking cops emptied out all the occupy camps? Or are you posting from Starbucks again?

        1. This is the time to get your family together & to activate all your disaster strategies.

        2. It’s just a spambot, Tim.

          1. A moment of weakness.

          2. Sounds like Brad DeLong. Who is Brad Delong. From a post up this morning on Bob Wenzel’s site:

            DeLong, is a professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration under Lary Summers. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and is a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

            So in other words, DeLong worked for Summers, who fired Iris Mack, who worked her way out of the New Orleans ghetto to earn a PhD in applied mathematics from Harvard University. She then ended up at Harvard Management where she realized HM was putting the Harvard endowment portfolio in jeopardy with its derivative positions. She emailed Summers about the dangers and was then fired from HM.

            Here are some screwy quotes of Mr. Delong:

            Ron Paul is the candidate for those who think that the Trilateral Commission and the CFR is coming to kill us all–not to mention that the homes [sic], the Blacks, the lesbians, and the Mexicans are coming to do the same…

            Less charitably (and, I think, more honestly), Ron Paul by and large only gives a shit about maximizing the freedom of white men?.

            Yeah, that guy is a serious person engaged in serious policy that effects the lives of the rest of us. Excuse me while I divest. Or vomit.

            1. Again you are expecting rational thought from Berkeley Keynesian? He only stops blowing Krugman long enough to pen these little gems and should be dismissed out of hand.

              1. Again you are expecting rational thought from Berkeley Keynesian? He only stops blowing Krugman long enough to pen these little gems and should be dismissed out of hand.

                That was an odd reply. He can’t be dismissed out of hand because he has pull, influence and power beyond his competence as a human being. Who should I be criticizing then if not those in authority who make bad judgement calls and who are petty to the core?

                1. Not odd at all from me….I think DeLong like Krugman is a fool and will eventually get his comeuppance. But you are right, he is in the position of training a percentage of the next generation of economists who will pander to politicians and the state by telling them that all spending that they do is all to the good. I don’t know what to tell you…the Krugs and DeLongs of this world are still controlling the debate. I say reject what he says out of hand because you’ll never change his mind and until the system he espouses collapses under the weight of its inherent contradictions you are stuck on his playing field.

      2. There have been countless incidents of gangs beating up white people, but it’s apparently okay with “Wisdom”.

        1. We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but that is hardly irrational.

          1. Right on!

      3. Luckily the FBI crime reports back this up, if you take the time to look.

        1. Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.

      4. Revenge for four hundred years of oppression.

    2. Why do these idiot fucking progressives and lefties have such a hard time grasping the simple concept that sometimes a lone nutter does nutty things for no reason, because the nutter is a fucking nutter?

      You mean people can be held responsible for their own actions?
      Hell no!
      It’s always someone else’s fault!
      There’s always someone to sue, or something to ban!

      Ultimately this was George Bush’s fault.
      Everything is.

    3. Shorter version: professors know jack squat.

  17. Republicans are responsible for the acts of Giffords. But Marx is completely without blame for the hundreds of millions murdered in his name.

    1. David Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that.

    2. It’s scientific John, it just needs tweaking…

  18. a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason.

    Hope and change, muthafucker! Hope! And! Change!

    A very reasonable political thesis.

    1. THREAT LEVEL 1 is the final & most dangerous level that your will face. A full-scale riot erupts with looting, arson & wanton attacks.

      1. Didn’t they have one of those in LA after the Rodney King verdict?

        We had one in Atlanta they had to rescue a family of Korean grocers off the roof with a police helicopter.

      2. What are you babbling about now?

  19. What they were, though, were symptoms of the larger causes of Tucson’s unease: a fragile economy, a fear of illegal immigrants, a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason, and the disconnected neighborhoods of newcomers where loneliness festers and lack of concern for one’s neighbor becomes a habit.

    I think our politicians, and especially the president, contributed to a lot of that paranoia.

    1) a fragile economy

    When the president squandered the future paychecks of everyday people to bailout Wall Street, how much did that contribute to people’s feelings of paranoia?

    2) a fear of illegal immigrants

    I’ve the argued the following around here before: the more people are forced to pay for each other, the pickier they become about who they’re willing to pay for.

    It is not a coincidence, in my opinion, that Arizona’s vicious anti-immigrant law came at a time when Arizona was laying off teachers by the boatload and ObamaCare had been recently passed.

    There may be some odd exceptions, but generally speaking, show me a government where healthcare and other social benefits are more generous, and I’ll show you a place where the immigration restrictions are generally trending higher.

    When schools were moving to 4-day school weeks because of fiscal mismanagement, and the Obama Administration came along and told people they were all gonna have to start making individual sacrifices so that everyone has easy access to healthcare, the politicians of Arizona scapegoating illegal immigrants should have been an easy prediction to make.

    Who’d you expect Arizona’s politicians to blame–themselves?!

    3) a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason

    “Passion over Reason”, isn’t that the title of the first chapter in the Progressive-Liberal Handbook? Has this guy ever listened to Obama make a speech about anything?

    4) disconnected neighborhoods of newcomers where loneliness festers and lack of concern for one’s neighbor becomes a habit.

    That may tend to make people feel isolated–but paranoid? The paranoia comes when government forcing obligations to one’s neighbor becomes a habit–and you’re already afraid you’re gonna lose your job and your home.

    1. The ACT-UP slogan is “Silence = Death.” But shouldn’t it be “SODOMY = Death”?

    2. I agree that Bush’s TARP baailouts fed a lot of paranoid anger and was the genesis of the Tea Party and OWS.

      TARP was a defining moment in US history for many reasons other than helping Obama get elected.

      1. Didn’t Obama vote for TARP?

        1. Yes, but he was overshadowed by McCain’s grandstanding on it.

          1. Halting his campaign to stump for it probably finished McCain. Anyone with half a political brain could have played up the populism of it and defeated Obama. McCain lacked half a brain apparently.

          2. Yes, but he was overshadowed by McCain’s grandstanding on it.

            And he was against it before he was for it. So…

        2. TARP was the culmination of years of executive branch and regulatory failure.

          Congress acted rationally when Paulson said that we were on the brink of financial destruction.

          1. So Bush was an idiot for passing the detestable TARP but Congress and Paulson were geniuses in supporting it?

            Do you even read the imbecility that you write?

            1. You can’t read. Bush policy was fucked up and set up a financial disaster.

              TARP was merely rational – a capital cushion for a while. Not “genuis” at all. Don’t light a match in your straw.

          2. Congress acted rationally when Paulson said that we were on the brink of financial destruction.

            Clearly, and we have the evidence to prove it.

          3. Congress acted rationally when Paulson said that we were on the brink of financial destruction.

            Congress was terrified.

            Fear is the Mind-Killer!

  20. Is it unreasonable to expect an English professor to be more eloquent? I’m not expecting the Bard here, but this reads like a freshman English-lit assignment.

    “Unease”, really?

  21. I didn’t have time to read this article because I was moving from Skyrim to Star Wars: The Old Republic. BTW, it sucks. It is the same ole grind of a MMO. The interface is too think and clunky. Getting to instances is a pain in the ass. There are professions that you wonder what the fuck they do and are for. There is no cross server ability to get a bunch of people into an instance. I like that there is a story and that there is morality. But you have to go either totally good or tottally bad for it to make any difference. I seem to stay in the middle. Sometime evil, sometime good.

    1. Sometime evil, sometime good?

      It seems you are lonely and have an unease with society at large. Have you been viewing any objects through a cross-hairs lately?

    2. I also don’t like the character models. It’s like Star Wars crossed with Team Fortress.

      That and subscription fees. Fuck subscription fees.

      1. nope.avi

    3. So it’s classic Bioware morality? Your choices are either “WWJD” or “Kill Puppies for Satan”?

      1. This is why Mass Effect has been their only morally workable game. Because in that one, it’s not about good v. evil- it’s basically the cop movie dilemna of “doing it by the book” v. “taking some liberties to get the bad guys”.

        In both Mass Effects, I’ve ended up at like 75-80% good and maybe 50% evil. My basic philsophy is this: I’m not going to be a dick to you out the gate, but if you try and fuck with me or are just being an asshole and exploiting people, yeah, I’m going to fuck your shit up.

  22. Don’t worry. Victoria Principal is going to wake and find Patrick Duffy in the shower soon enough.

  23. Because we all know that Loughner was part of that massive Sarah Palin-Tea Party-Zeitgeist fan crossover demographic. Thousands of people sympathetic and receptive to a particular line of political rhetoric refrained from violence. A young man with mental problems hostile to that line of rhetoric shot a bunch of people. Obviously, the rhetoric was to blame. Some things really are so divorced from the basics of reason, logic and rational thinking that only a lit professor could buy into them.

    1. Part of the problem is the closed loop thinking on campuses (campii?). Since almost everyone thinks the same & uses the same sources (NPR, NYT, etc.) they start off with a hypothesis that may or may not be reasonable and then reinforce it in each other’s minds until it becomes truth.

      This is the biggest problem with the ideological dominance on campus: not the leftism itself but that it leaves no room for alternative reasoning and worldviews.

      1. NPR. Ugh, that reminds me. When I say I saw something on TV, I say I saw something on TV. If I read it in a magazine, I say, “I read in a magazine” unless it’s important that the source is cited (to create a context like Scientific American or the SKeptical Inquirer or whatever.)

        What is with these liberals that they always have to fucking announce they were listening to NPR (if they said a specific show, I’d give that a pass) or start a point with, “I was listening to NPR” Who gives a shit?! Just get to the point. It’s like a badge of intellectual superiority for these people.

  24. Teaching literature is so boring nowadays…

    …gotta get tenure somehow.

  25. I saw a story in this morning’s paper that the former head of the retired park ranger’s association, or whatever they call themselves, is already blaming the shooting of the female park ranger at Mt. Rainier on the legislation allowing legal carry of guns in federal parks.

    Because, you know, if there were a RULE against having a gun in a park, that guy never would have had that gun there, and he never would have shot that park ranger.

    1. “Because, you know, if there were a RULE against having a gun in a park, that guy never would have had that gun there, and he never would have shot that park ranger.”

      Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s make murder illegal! That’ll put a stop to it.

  26. At this rate, if/when some deranged Team Blue member goes wiggy and shoots one of their perceived enemies, it’ll be blamed on “right-wing” vitriol.

    Bets?

    1. Only a complete moron would take that bet.

      Tony?

      1. ** fights urge to take that bet **

    2. When some left wing nut takes a shot at Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin the line will be that the evil republicans created such a toxic environment it was no surprise that some on the left acted rashly.

      1. +1 to you, John. The headlines are likely already written.

      2. Im sure the left will cheer like they did when Reagan was shot.

        1. You know, that’s probably true.

          Show me a leftist and I’ll show you a hypocrite.

      3. The only reason Palin is still alive is that leftists can’t figure out how to load guns.

        1. Oh, but they can hire people who CAN load guns… their private bodyguards.

    3. Yeah, like the commentators – who had been saying anyone who didn’t vote for Obama was a racist – then deciding that Republicans who were going to vote for Herman Cain were also racists.

    4. It’s already been done with Oswald and, I’d argue, Loughner, though he was mostly incomprehensible.

  27. … a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason…

    Drink?

  28. I live in Seattle and the anti-gun, PTSD thing is big. The Lefties need to believe in it (Peace is good, we’re somehow for it…war is bad…Bush’s war is awful…every soldier has PTSD…and only psychologists and sociologists who work for the gov’t can save them).

    Imagine listening to national NPR, then moving three ticks Left. That’s the local NPR station

    1. I’ve got an idea on this PTSD thing.

      DON’T SEND PEOPLE INTO COMBAT UNLESS YOU’VE GOT A REALLY FUCKING GOOD REASON!

      Ron Paul 2112

      1. Sorry.
        Rush 2112!
        Ron Paul 2012

    2. PTSD is bullshit. Back in my day it was called shell-shock and the proper treatment was an aspirin and a ride back to one’s line unit.

      1. Well, to be fair, those were the days when a man was expected to wake up with a hangover, have a Gin Fizz for breakfast, some Scotch for lunch, and finish the night off with several martinis.

        1. Don’t forget taking a little time in the afternoon to schtup his secretary.

  29. Things do not happen in a vacuum.

    1. In space, no one can hear you scream.

    2. Actually, lots of things happen in a vacuum. There’s a little motor in there, with a fan, and some wires and a switch, and a filter and stuff.

      1. Don’t forget all the house dust mites making feverish love to each other.

  30. Damn it! We almost had them! But if we can’t pin this one on the right wing right now, we can use enough weasel words and repeat them enough that they’ll be blamed over the course of generations like we did with the JFK assassination.

  31. Crazy people do crazy things. So simple anon-bot could handle it.

  32. Who let the dogs out?

  33. Im guessing Gator Bowl sponsor TaxSlayer is will be responsible for the next pol shot.

    1. Did you have to mention that game?

    2. I didn’t even know there was such a company prior to its bowl sponsorship.

      1. I didn’t know that there was a Dale Earnhardt, Junior?!

  34. Zollner argues that after all, it was you and me…but mostly you

    That’s OK, considering that you represent everything that’s wrong with this country.

  35. if there were a RULE against having a gun in a park, that guy never would have had that gun there, and he never would have shot that park ranger.

    But think of the expanded opportunities for bullying and intimidating actual law-abiding civilians. It makes writing tickets for riding a bicycle off the path (without a helmet) or tubing under the influence (without a lifejacket) seem positively boring.

    And, speaking of bullying and intimidating the peasantry, if they hadn’t thrown up a dragnet/roadblock for a guy “possibly” in violation of the fucking chain law, she’d probably be on the bully beat right now.

  36. “allows us to ignore the contributing human context, which is something we can change.”

    Best way to change the “human context”? Kill the human.

    1. I should have attributed this to my favorite philosopher, BENDER the Magnificent.

  37. More from the idiot gun-grabbers scared of the big black guns:

    “Undated photos provided by police showed a shirtless, tattooed Barnes brandishing two large weapons.”

    “The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal for people to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

    Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

    “The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” said Wade.

    Wade called Sunday’s fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today’s political climate.”

    Bill Wade, what an effing idiot.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/s…..oting.html

    1. Well, if we just declare the entire country a “Crime Free Zone” there wouldn’t be any crime.

      Also, murder should be illegal.

      1. Kind of like the entire country is a marijuana-free zone?

  38. Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

    “The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” said Wade.

    He would have said the same thing if some legally armed park visitor had shot Barnes. “We cannot have uncredentialed vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. That guy should have just cowered in fear until the Authorities massed their forces, carefully assessed the tactical situation, and moved in. What if he had shot some noble park ranger by accident?”

    1. An off-duty state trooper who was hunting in southeast Massachusetts shot and wounded a 66-year-old woman who was out walking her two dogs when he mistook her pets for a deer.

      The woman was shot in the torso while walking on a wooded path in Norton about 5 p.m. Saturday. Police said the trooper called 911 after realizing he had mistaken the tails of the two retrievers for a deer’s tail.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS…..n-15270243

      1. You have to be pretty fucking stupid to shoot someone while hunting or at least drunk (see Dick Cheney).

        1. Also, how would he know it was a buck?

          I’m no zoologist, but I’m pretty sure dogs don’t have antlers.

          1. Just a trigger happy moron. He may have had a doe tag. In some states you have to shoot so many does before you can shoot a buck. Shooting the bucks doesn’t keep the population down since one buck can impregnate lots of does.

          2. I’m no zoologist, but I’m pretty sure dogs don’t have antlers.

            The one in the Grinch did.

            1. Also in “Year Without a Santa Claus”

            2. Mice too….if you use staples!

              (Scrooged)

          3. Have you tried staples?

      2. “State police on Sunday said investigators determined the shooting was an accident. The name of the trooper, who also lives in Norton, was not released because he faces no charges.”

        1. We’ll see what the civil jury thinks.

      3. You can bet that a civilian would have faced charges for not sufficiently identifying their target before pulling the trigger.

        1. You mean I can’t randomly shoot whatever I want and then claim I thought it was something else?

          1. You can if you’re in law enforcement.

            1. So I can claim I thought I was in law enforcement?

              1. Sure, but I wouldn’t recommend it. They lock you up for that.

      4. I hunt alot. I see lots of deer. A deer in no way resembles a dog or vice versa. The guy saw something move and shot it. Fucking idiot.
        No doubt the local DA will let him off because he is a cop but I hope the woman has sense enough to sue.

        Mass lets this guy wander around in public with a gun?

        1. ^^This^^. I have hunted some. And I certainly see deer all of the time. You can’t mistake a dog for one.

          My guess is that he was bored and thought the dogs were strays. And being a cop and an asshole thought he would fill the time by shooting a stray dog.

          1. being a cop and an asshole

            You’re being redundant.

        2. Here in Washington, I believe a kid shot a woman in a blue parka, thinking it was a bear. How many bears you guys ever seen wearing a blue parka?

        3. Mass lets this guy wander around in public with a gun?

          Not just allowed to gambol with a firearm I understand the state pays him to do so.

      5. So basically the story is a cop tried to shoot a dog, but ended up shooting the dog’s owner instead?

        This is news?

      6. few years ago same thing happened in Maine. Woman was in her backyard and was wearing a deer’s tail (something white). A lot Mainers felt sorry for the killer (he had to live with that and all). The woman was clearly an idiot for going outside during hunting season.

      7. I don’t think he shot the woman. But no way did he think he was shooting at a deer. He was bored and thought the dogs were strays. So he figured he would pop a stray dog to pass the time.

        Being a cop, the chances of him being the kind of sadistic asshole who would shoot a dog out of boredom is pretty high.

        1. Based on the address, it appears that this accident occured no more than 0.5 mile from any residence. And that’s being generous. Is hunting that close to homes normal?

    2. I just wanna know how the libtard press justifies a quote from the effing “outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees”???

      They couldn’t find somebody higher ranking that was stewed in brain-dead Sarah Brady propoganda?

  39. If only they had put a sign up saying “no guns”, that guy would have just turned around and gone home.

    1. Exactly.

      Or a sign that said “No Murders”.

    2. As long as the sign is bilingual and Braille, that should do the trick.

      WARNING
      ADVERTENCIA

      DO NOT MURDER
      NO MATAR AQUI

      1. Saw that sign at a gunshow … right alongside the Braille edition of an AK47 manual …

  40. I missed the Loughner discussions while I was doing work? I’m going to torch this fucking place!

    1. We know you do not support Palin, thus you are no threat to anyone.

  41. a toxic political culture that favors passion over reason

    He’s on something if he thinks this isn’t the prevailing state of politics, especially in a democracy.

    1. And he wrote that without a twinge of irony, I’m sure.

  42. Gabrielle Giffords, who, besides the president, may have been the most reviled public face in Tucson that year.

    Wait, what?

    I thought she was most beloved of all God’s creatures. You mean MSNBC had it wrong?

    1. Funny thing she was pretty much a Blue Dog, and therefore no more a target of right-wing extremists than left-wing extremists.

    2. She is a politician and therefore deserving of scorn, if not murder.
      Right Brooksie?

    3. Meh, I remember the lefties being happy when Reagan got shot. What’s old is new again.

  43. So if this shooter turns up at your house tonight, aims his gun at you and you fire back and kill him, that’s okay, right? (I’m okay with it on every level: moral, legal, etc.)

    However, if the cops catch him before he gets to your house. He’s arrested, tried and sentenced to death, why that’s just evil?

    Just askin’.

    1. um …

      ‘cos he was sentenced to death for just going to my house?

      Just kidding.

    2. Because shooting him in self-defense was the only way to prevent a murder.

    3. So if this shooter turns up at your house tonight, aims his gun at you and you fire back and kill him, that’s okay, right? (I’m okay with it on every level: moral, legal, etc.)

      However, if the cops catch him before he gets to your house. He’s arrested, tried and sentenced to death, why that’s just evil?

      Just askin’.

      Simpleton troll is simple.

      Common law of self-defense: if you are presented with a threat of imminent serious physical injury or death, you have the inherent right to use force, including deadly force, to defend yourself from that threat. If it comes down to someone presenting an immediate threat to your life or safety, you have the right to protect your life and safety by combatting that threat. It’s you against him.

      The government arrests someone on suspicion of committing a crime – he does not present any imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to anyone. It is now the state against the individual. The individual has a right to due process.

      In your scenario, why is he sentenced to death? The cops caught him on the way to the house. He didn’t even get close enough to completion to be charged with attempted assault. At most, maybe a weapons violation if he was illegally carrying or something.

  44. I’m talking about the WA state park shooter, not Loughner.

    1. Your question then is about the death penalty, not about the legitimacy of an individual acting in self-defense.

  45. I’m talking about the WA state park shooter, not Loughner.

  46. Also, murder should be illegal.

    Sir, you go too far!

    1. No, like Obama, he doesn’t go far enough. Murder and illegal guns should be illegal. Along with other illegal activity.

  47. It’s already been established that Loughner did not shoot Giffords at random, nor was it because she represented the government. He specifically targeted her, not because of right-wing radio, but because he had a specific grievance against her. In his opinion, she had not giving him sufficient attention when he asked her a question at an event she held in 2007. He held a grudge, he snapped and he acted on his impulses.

    Anyone trying to tie it to anything political is being disingenuous and completely lacking in integrity.

    1. If you are going to the the facts get in the way of the preferred narrative, then you, sir, have no future in liberal academia, and your epistemological terrorism will not be tolerated.

      1. “Epistemological terrorism” – shit, don’t give them any ideas. They’ll go with that.

        1. I just assume they already have, as I could never hope to compete with their ability to generate most-modern gibberish.

  48. However, if the cops catch him before he gets to your house. He’s arrested, tried and sentenced to death, why that’s just evil?

    Are you sure you’re not talking about the PreCrime Bureau, Monsieur Cow?

    Yes, he was wanted in connection with another incident, but I’m not sure there was a capital crime involved.

  49. she was pretty much a Blue Dog, and therefore no more a target of right-wing extremists than left-wing extremists.

    I kind of have it in my head that Blue Dogs are geographically restricted to the Old South, but yeah.

    Western Democrats are in many cases substantively different from East Coast Elite Dems. If I made a careful study of the voting records of Jon Tester (D, Montana and Whosis Brown (R, Mass), Tester would come away with a whole lot more votes which conform to my wishes.

    So much for TEAM RED TEAM BLUE.

    1. Actually, I associate Blue Dogs more with the West and South West, such as Montana’s pro-gun Democrat governor.

      I also think things like geography and demographics have much to do with that.

  50. **Sigh** You people are so dense, yeah, you barely suppressed rage. Fucking dense.

    You cannot be for the 2nd Amendment and against the death penalty and be intellectually consistent. Sorry, you can’t be.

    The 2nd A. ultimately allows you to defend your life and property using lethal force.

    Why doesn’t the State get that same right, to defend its citizens’ life and property, using lethal force?

    The individual defender makes his decision to fire a weapon and kill in a split second. The State takes months, years often to come its conclusion.

    And in the individual’s case, a crime has not yet been committed. Only the threat of a crime. Whereas the State can only put convicted murderers up for execution.

    1. Are you trolling, or retarded?

      1. Don’t discount the possibility that it’s both, not either/or.

        1. Retards are funny, and good trolls are interesting, but we’re too full of retard trolls right now. He should come back later.

          1. The Big Three would then steer us towards a one-world future. This is exactly the Trilateralist plan.

        2. I was going to suggest both. The evidence strongly supports it.

    2. The State can and does use lethal force, although governments don’t have “rights” like people do.

      If someone has been convicted of murder there is no “threat of a crime”, it is a determination that a crime has already occurred.

      1. It also is not conclusive proof that the person actually, in fact, committed that crime.

    3. The 2nd A. ultimately allows you to defend your life and property using lethal force.

      Um, no.

      Centuries of English common law, as adopted by U.S. courts, establish the individual right of self-defense. Even without the 2A, you would still have the right to use force in self-defense.

      I’m not going to bother to engage the rest of your troll, because it’s already evident it’s above your ability to comprehend.

    4. M. Cow:

      I suggest you look into the applicability of the “imminent death or harm” standard to your argument.

  51. Answer my question, Warty. If I’m so retarded, you’d easily be able to take down my argument.

    I’m waiting.

    1. Keep on waiting, chief. Maybe someday I’ll give enough of a fuck about you to correct your idiocy.

      1. Maybe someday I’ll give enough of a fuck about you to…

        …call you a retard while insisting I don’t care?
        Hahahahaha!

    2. Warty has no answer. Notice how he and his little groupies instantly resorted to name-calling? It’s an admission of impotence.

  52. So if Tony enters your house brandishing a gun threatening to kill you:

    1) you whip out a gun and shoot him. That’s A-Ok. Right?

    2) As Tony whips out his gun, he trips and falls and gets knocked unconscious. You call the cops. Tony gets arrested. He’s tried and convicted of 4 other murders in addition to B and E at your house. He’s gets sentenced to death. Why, that’s just wrong, correct?

    1. Yes, it’s wrong. You know you probably just google arguments against the death penalty….

    2. WHC, logic has no power here. Try faith. It’s what libertarians use as a substitute for philosophy.

      1. You use this word “logic.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

        1. I know exactly what it means. It’s libertarians who resort to faith (and name-calling and, in your case, clich?s) when confronted with it.

          1. …reception in the folks basement?

            1. Whoa! A “parents’ basement” joke!
              Who says true wit is dead?

    3. 3) You prop up Tony’s unconscious body and shoot him dead, then call the police and tell them you acted in self-defense.

      I like that outcome even better.

    4. Actually, Tony would have a good chance of successfully suing your homeowners insurance for damages caused by falling in your home.

  53. Official line among some conservatives & libertarians is that the civil rights movement started out well, but went astray after MLK’s death. in fact, [the civil right’s movement] was bad from the beginning.

  54. Why doesn’t the State get that same right, to defend its citizens’ life and property, using lethal force?

    You’re a dumbass (and yes, I already knew that).

    The death penalty, as administered by the state, is a revenge murder, not self-defense. If a private citizen takes it into his head to kill, after the fact, someone who has wronged him however horribly, the state will not tolerate the competition.

    A criminal who has been convicted and imprisoned poses no immediate threat; why should the state bother, after a period of years, to suddenly rouse themselves to snuff him?

    1. Forget a PhD. Give [Martin Luther King, Jr.] an IQ test.

    2. P Brooks, didn’t you read the comment above? Logic has no power here. So just cut it out, wouldja?

  55. Even [MLK’s] ballyhooed “non-violence” was a tactic. He wanted to take power like Castro did.

  56. Constitutionally & from the standpoint of our natural rights, we should be able to discriminate in renting or otherwise using our property -sexually, racially, religiously, ethnically, or just because we don’t like the person’s face.

    1. Actually, this one I pretty much agree with. If a property owner is a racist asshole, let him be a racist asshole. He doesn’t want to rent his house to the church-going neurosurgeon and his family, simply because they’re black? Well, let him. It would be his loss. He can rent his house to Cletus and his inbred mutant homeys instead.

  57. The woman was clearly an idiot for going outside during hunting season.

    Of course she was.

  58. The only safe sex, medically and morally, is that between husband and wife.

  59. Even [MLK’s] ballyhooed “non-violence” was a tactic. He wanted to take power like Castro did.

    1. That’s why my speeches always had an implied threat. Make a deal with me now, or deal with Malcom later. Funny thing is, you’d all have been better off if you made a deal with Malcolm. He’d never tell a kid to get an education so he can become a government drone.

  60. Being a cop, the chances of him being the kind of sadistic asshole who would shoot a dog out of boredom is pretty high.

    OMFG BIGOT!!!!!!!

    res ipsa loquitur

  61. Why can’t we have a spambot troll who posts snippets from Innocents Abroad or Life on the Mississippi?

    1. “It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream – a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought – a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!”

      1. Now you made me feel bad about myself.

      2. Isn’t that what Clarence said to George right after they got kicked out of Nick’s joint?

    2. I love Twain’s travel literature. It’s mildly surprising that it doesn’t get noted for its greatness more frequently.

      1. Absolutely. Just re-read “Innocents Abroad” and “Roughing It”. Again, for the umpteenth time. HIGHlarious.

        Also visited Hannibal, MO last year – sad place, really.

        1. It’s about time I did the same. Life on the Mississippi is in the re-read queue as well.

  62. She is a politician and therefore deserving of scorn, if not murder.
    Right Brooksie?

    You forgot ridicule.

  63. Oh, Barnes was a Skyway resident. ‘Nuff said.

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2733773

    1. Now with the proper link.

      http://www.washington.edu/emer…..49-present

  64. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  65. Your butt hurts, doesn’t it, anonypussy?

    Maybe you should scooch it on the carpet, or something.

    1. Oh Brooksie, your narcissism knows no bounds, and your wit is butter-knife sharp.

  66. Dismissing Loughner as a random “black swan,” free of all antecedents or influences, is worse than facile or lazy. It is actively dangerous, for it allows us to ignore the contributing human context, which is something we can change.

    It seems the primary societal context that matters in this case is the piss-poor state of our mental health services in the USA.

    Despite the rhetoric of the Szaszists…sometimes people’s disease chooses for them.

  67. Aside from RC Dean’s help (always appreciated) and GH’s defense of me, all I got was insults and non-sequiturs.

    You True Libertarians couldn’t defend actual libertarianism in a debate hosted by FA Hayek against retarded North Korean kids.

    Oh, by the way, Warty, you’re ignorance knows no bounds. A troll is someone who posts and then bolts.

    There’s hundreds of my posts (also as Holy Cow) here on Reason.com. In short, I’m still here. Sadly, so are you.

    Anyway, hope you had a good winter solstice celebration or whatever the fuck you druids are worshipping this millennium.

    1. In case you haven’t figured it out by now, Warty and his clones are anti-intellectuals. They avoid first principles and axioms and jump into politics midstream. That’s why they cannot defend or comprehend the concept of a free people granting their government monopolistic use of force against aggressors, according to objectively defined laws. It’s hardly a wonder that they have trouble digesting concepts of crime and punishment. Theirs is a world of floating abstractions and elastic ethics, subjective law, anarchy.

      1. You know what would be a positive development? Farting in jars.

  68. P Brooks:

    It’s not a revenge murder by the State. Don’t be a jackass.

    It’s as very much a protection of life and liberty as is a property owner using lethal force in legal defense of himself.

    You think keeping a killer alive in prison poses no threat? Really? Thousands of examples of prison murders, thousands of examples of the imprisoned directing outside murders.

    And of course, no prisoner could ever escape or be paroled.

    You guys do the exact same shit as liberals. You start from the premise that the motives of those with whom you disagree are bad. You don’t wanna cut spending, you want granny to starve, etc.

    As if revenge was the only reason for an execution.

    1. Its hard to characterize an execution as a killing that was necessary to prevent death or imminent bodily harm, which is the standard for self-defense. I think that’s why people balk at it.

    2. You think keeping a killer alive in prison poses no threat? Really? Thousands of examples of prison murders, thousands of examples of the imprisoned directing outside murders.

      Our prison system is a mess. The fact that people are still able to run criminal organizations from within prison or kill other prisoners does not justify capital punishment. Even someone who is in prison for a non-capital offense could commit murder in prison or arrange an outside murder. That’s probably most true when it comes to organized crime: the people who direct murders are often in jail for tax evasion or somesuch, not murder. Should tax evasion be a capital offense?

      If your argument is that capital punishment is the state’s method of practicing self-defense, then the opposite generalization should hold true as well. Any time the state executes an innocent man, it is guilty of manslaughter, and everyone who is complicit should be personally responsible. Shall we apply that standard and see just how often prosecutors are willing to seek the death penalty, and juries willing to apply it?

  69. Yay, Smiley Guy! I wish you wouldn’t slap “PANIC” across his face, though — kills the mood.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.