|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2011 14:37:18 GMT -4
Reason.com gave an interesting view of the situation. One with, at bare minimum, a very flawed view of how mental illness and mental health care work. A lot of the examined assassins hadn't seen a mental health care professional prior to the assassination? Of course they hadn't! That is not actually a significant indicator as to whether or not they were mentally ill, or anyway not as significant as they're claiming. How often have we said around here, "You can't force them to get help"? Unless their relatives have some reason to believe that the people are a danger to themselves or others, there is no way to force an adult to get mental health care. What's more, having convinced a mental health care professional after a brief examination that they're perfectly normal doesn't mean they are. I know how to hide my symptoms. I don't have any reason to and every reason not to, but a friend of mine in pretty much exactly my situation is still hiding his, because he doesn't want it made official that he's bipolar. The more time you spend around him, the more obvious he is that there's something wrong with him, but the examinations I underwent routinely when I was working my way through the Social Security bureaucracy were generally an hour long or less. I can "pass" for that long. What's more, they say that you can tell that people weren't politically motivated if they weren't members of political organizations and then mention Lee Harvey Oswald. At the time Oswald shot Kennedy, he almost literally had no social contacts. Czolgosz was at least in part inspired by anarchist rhetoric, but other anarchists basically hid under the couch when he knocked on the door to be let into meetings, because they thought he was nuts. What the article fails to understand is that a need for attention so great that you'd kill to get it is a symptom of mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 15:00:37 GMT -4
Wheras in other countries victims of violence are just more likely to be crippled for life when people get angry rather than outright killed? And this is better? If given the choice between being crippled or killed, I choose crippled. I would also rather have to defend myself against someone with a baseball bat or a knife than someone with a gun who can kill me from 20' away. At least I stand a better chance against a bat or knife.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2011 15:07:32 GMT -4
You're also substantially less likely to be accidentally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 15:13:49 GMT -4
Republicans did not "get off lucky" in any realistic since because there is no reason they should be tied to any attack in the first place. And, again, I'm not blaming the Tucson attack on anyone other than Jared Loughner. All I'm saying is that politicians and media commentators (on both sides) should use more caution because they don't know who in their audience might take their metaphors a bit too literally. If the next killer has a shrine to Glenn Beck in his basement don't say I didn't warn you. When I hear someone like Sharron Angle say "I hope we don't have to consider 2nd Amendment remedies" it sounds an awful lot like a mob boss saying "I really hope there is nothing wrong with the brakes in your car." It's a veiled threat, and it's completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 12, 2011 16:18:40 GMT -4
You will certainly get no augment from me against the idea that political discourse is excessively vulgar. But then again so is TV and radio. It is just that the vulgarity, lying and smearing one's opponents is bi-partisan in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 12, 2011 16:53:16 GMT -4
If the next killer has a shrine to Glenn Beck in his basement don't say I didn't warn you. The only person that has a shrine to Glenn Beck is, well, Glenn Beck! Other than Beck being a little too full of himself at times, what sort of things is it that he says that will incite killing sprees? Here he is on his rally. You get to see both Beck and the reactions of his audience. Advance to the 5:45 mark or so to get to the meatier parts: Beck On His Rally
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 17:27:00 GMT -4
If you want to see some disgusting advice to President Obama on how to best capitalize on this tragedy, you could read Newsweek's editorial piece from Monday.
That's right. Don't waste this shooting spree! Start exploiting the pain of the victims to address various social ills right away!
The conclusion to the same piece:
That's right - thank God she's alive, so she can act as a powerful political symbol!
Sickening.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 17:51:55 GMT -4
That's right. Don't waste this shooting spree! Start exploiting the pain of the victims to address various social ills right away! Yeah, like Conservatives have never exploited a tragedy before. It sounds to me like they're saying we should learn from this tragedy, not exploit it. Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 17:55:26 GMT -4
Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons? I don't think he did exploit them for political reasons.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 12, 2011 18:18:36 GMT -4
Yeah, like Conservatives have never exploited a tragedy before. I didn't say that, merely that I find this particular instance of cynical politicizing was sickening. What is the lesson the article says we should learn then? Here is a link to the piece. The title is "Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?" and it's entirely about political opportunism.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 12, 2011 19:30:22 GMT -4
Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons? Or when Republicans thought their tax break was more important than health benefits for 9/11 first responders?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 12, 2011 19:50:06 GMT -4
Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons? I don't think he did exploit them for political reasons. Of course you don't, because you're a Republican and a Republican would never speak poorly of the best President since Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 12, 2011 21:21:49 GMT -4
When I hear someone like Sharron Angle say "I hope we don't have to consider 2nd Amendment remedies" it sounds an awful lot like a mob boss saying "I really hope there is nothing wrong with the brakes in your car." It's a veiled threat, and it's completely unnecessary. I'm sorry, I just don't see a threat--veiled or explicit--in Angle's statement. From the radio interview: Angle is right in the first paragraph. The Second Amendment is for the citizens. Manders then makes a statement that may be over the top, but Angle reacts to it by pointing out that we can vote these bums out of office.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 12, 2011 21:25:40 GMT -4
Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons? I don't think he did exploit them for political reasons. Ummm, hello... the whole invading Iraq thing.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 13, 2011 12:19:10 GMT -4
Or when Republicans thought their tax break was more important than health benefits for 9/11 first responders? I for one appreciate that the Democrats failed to raise taxes considering the country's current economic situation.
|
|