Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2: Chewing over the News
537 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
I'll sumarise my views and move on.
1. I think the rush by the US liberal comentariat to link Palin to Lougher was ill-judged as there was no evidence and as of this moment there is still no evidence and mounting evidence for a very different scenario. Not that Palin doesn't deserve to be pinged, but ping her for something real.
2. The maps. Not a good idea to criticise others for something one has already done. I really don't find these arguments about crosshairs vs bullseyes all that convincing.
3. If people are going to argue that some one will not understand that the crosshair is a metaphor and they will then go and shoot someone then that should be argued on the basis of what we know of how the mind works. People just do not "go crazy" in some sort of random way.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Sorry to derail the discussion. I came across this: …
There may be some observations of value in there, but even a broken clock is right twice. Overall, I think the value of Chua’s simplistic commentary is demonstrated by the Wall Street Journal’s poll in the article:
Which style of parenting is best for children?
– Permissive Western parenting
– Demanding Eastern parentingThose are your options, folks.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Though I disagree with your conclusions, Neil, I appreciate you presenting them succinctly in one post like that. A good discipline.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
2) If that doesn’t work, lie. Re-write history, no matter how recent or easily checked, until nobody (least of all Palin herself) can keep the lies straight any more.
I'd say it's more 'bullshit' than 'lies', (using the metric that says to lie implies a concern about distorting what the receiver believes to be the truth, whereas a bullshitter just wants to move away from the subject and doesn't give a monkey's what the receiver believes to be true). The point of this isn't simply to deflect any perception of blame, it's to stand by your comments in a deliberately unbelievable, but still deniable, way.
She is not backing down from the rhetoric, and she is avoiding saying the most simple thing in the world which would be something like:
"I feel terrible about what has happened, and while I certainly never intended for my imagery to be taken literally, and I don't think anyone did, in light of these shootings I agree that this sort of thing is in bad taste. We won't be using similar things again"
Instead, well, not.
I think in light of the facts that:
- Palin was warned by the Secret Service during her VP run to tone down her rhetoric due to the increase in death threat related activity. She knows that words have consequences.
- She must be aware of the right wing discourse about 'second amendment remedies', and the tree of liberty requiring blood, and the illegitimacy of Obama in particular and the Democratic Party more generally.
- Similarly she must be aware of the fact that there have been arrests, plots, and indeed other shootings from people holding the view that the Republic is under threat from domestic enemies within the Federal government.
... then it is not unreasonable to assume that she isn't particularly concerned if her messages resonate with those folks.
That's not to say that she is deliberately trying to provoke them, but she knows they are out there, she knows they listen to her messages, and she gives the messages she gives.
When confronted about potential problems with those messages, she does not resile herself from them. She just lies about it in a most transparent way.
That's strange behaviour. At best I'd say it's willful negligence about the effects her rhetoric has.
As a final point, I'll just say that I don't think you can look at the images in isolation. She knows the audience(s). It's a two way conversation. Not everyone sees the image in the same way.
Again, willful negligence is what I'm claiming. I don't think she genuinely wants to incite this sort of behaviour, but she does seem to not want to alienate those who think it may be necessary at some point in the not too distant future.
In general I don't think it's absurd to say that when rhetoric about the nation being at dire risk from domestic enemies becomes mainstreamed, and when people start making a point of showing up at political rallies armed, and when candidates for a mainstream party are talking about revolution, that more people, at the margin, will start thinking about taking part in militant action.
Politicians can either do what they can to calm that, or they can inflame it.
I don't think Palin, FOX, Limbaugh, Coulter, or their apologists have been particularly calming.
It's not 'politicising' things to point that out. The shit is already political.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
cheers Sacha, that's appreciated. My wife comes back tomorrow and there's work commitments so I won't have the luxury of extented engagements here.
On an anti-death penalty note, I see the defense attorney Lougher has been assigned is very good at getting people off the death penalty.
Lougher's mug shot shows he's still very pleased with himself, far better he lives to be a lonely sad old man like Manson has and Chapman will be.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Here’s a quick thought exercise, if you’re unconvinced: stick a crosshairs over the kiwi in the Air Force logo, rather than the bullseye currently used. And tell me the meaning doesn’t change.
They’re both still associated with killing to me.
Really?...
Oh, wait, I see what you mean.
-
oops, she defended Timothy McVeigh as well. Still, she got the Unabomber off the death penalty.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
2. The maps. Not a good idea to criticise others for something one has already done. I really don’t find these arguments about crosshairs vs bullseyes all that convincing.
I'm not exactly convinced by Michelle Malkin doing a selective trawl through Kos, Democratic Underground and her photo album of selected fuck-wits at anti-war protests and saying "see, they're just as bad". (The link's over at Kiwiblog, I'm not stinking up my keyboard.) Michelle can give me a fucking call when Rep. Bachman gets shot in the head, and five others (including a nine year old girl and a congressional staffer) are killed, at a public event.
And, bluntly, when a rhetorical napalm thrower like Malkin has to appeal to the far-left to make excuses for the far-right, she's admitted defeat before she hit post.
But I think you've really made clear what I find really depressing about the Tea Party/Palinistas -- they're children with no moral intelligence.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
This little silly season bombshell, initially released with all details supressed, should shock every New Zealander, yet here we are worrying about some hypocrite on the other side of the planet catching a bit of karma.
I know! How can people have opinions on two separate issues??
And yeah, why have concern for people on the other side of the world. They are the other. There needs to be less concern for the other in this world – that’s what’s causing all the problems. -
Marcus Turner, in reply to
Thanks for taking a look at that article, Steve.
I've had discussions with Taiwanese people who disagree strongly with aspects of New Zealand education: particularly the notion of letting students discover their own answers. As far as I understood, I was being told that ensuring that the student gained knowledge was more important than allowing them to pursue individual interest. The notion of allowing students to think for themselves was being disparaged, because (I think this is how the argument went) teachers know what students need and students are inexperienced in life.
I thought of this discussion when I read the article (which I've seen described as a troll in order to generate publicity for a book). The writer's approach appears to be based on values that I don't share, but seem to be shared by the Taiwanese I was talking with.
The writer seems to be saying that Asians share this view and that Westerners don't. I wonder how true that is? I remember Raybon Kahn (spelling?) making jokes about how you'd know if an Asian person had burgled your house, because the TV would be gone and all the maths homework would be done. For some reason, I do have the impression that Asian people are good at maths and music, and seem to be prominent among the high achievers in many schools.
Are Asian people really better at these things, or is it a function of being an immigrant, who's working extra-hard not to fail?
(I was fascinated with the notion that a parent should tell their child that anything less than an A is not good enough. Is it possible for everyone in an Asian class to get an A? If not, I guess you see yourself as in a sort of constant fight or competition with those around you. It must be very stressful.)
I remember at high school there used to be this sort of competition to boast about who'd done the greatest number of hours' study the previous night. I was never in the running, really, but didn't seem to be particularly disadvantaged by it in terms of exam results.
Yet, I remember reading (in an article in the Listener, I think) that teachers prefer to teach hard workers rather than simply capable or talented people (unless they're also hard workers). It seems that hard work is what creates success (though I'm not sure what constitutes success: I guess it's whatever is the opposite of disenfranchisement through lack of education).
I know that as a parent I have sometimes forced my kids to act against their own will, because I perceived that what they wanted to do was dangerous. I'm not sure how I feel knowing that some parents are prepared to make their children really uncomfortable -disressed even - in order to learn a piano piece. I think of music as something you do for fun (from a personal point of view, I really can't see the point, otherwise).
I can't tell whether I'm being racist in feeling worried that we might - as relatively laissez faire pakeha - be marginalised by an influx of driven hard-workers. I know I'm partly being irrational, but can't tell whether those of us who've enjoyed life in a relatively rich, relatively underpopulated country are in the process of receiving a rude shock as that country disappears.
Are the values espoused in the article likely to become dominant in the west if those who espouse them are most successful? Does "success" in this context constitute power?
And is it, as the writer asserts, really a characteristic of race?
-
While this is probably unnecessary for the PAS attendee, get a look at John Stewart's take on it if you can (I believe you still need US proxy servers to view thedailyshow.com?). Aside from a rather flat attempt at levity with John Oliver, he nails the tone and explicitly states how ridiculous attempting to lay blame or causation with rightwing rhetoric is. And as he said, this is coming from someone "who hates the political speech in the US".
What he does beautifully nail (and the distinction is significant) is the fact that said rhetoric is not all that indistinguishable from the ramblings of the crazies that do these types of things. "It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot."
I certainly hope a few of the centre-left commentariat that respect him take the message to heart and drop some of these attempts to imply straightline causation. Frankly that stuff is just handing martyrdom to the Palins, Becks and Limbaughs of the world; as opposed to the much harder-to-defend charge that the rhetoric and messaging they use is the same as that of the type of mentally ill individual that pull guns on Congressmen and children.
-
Neil Morrison, in reply to
I'm not exactly convinced by Michelle Malkin...
I wouldn't be either but it's still there on the DLC site replete with "Behind Enemy Lines".
As for Kos, how quickly things change. Back in 2008 it was him who was accusing Giffords of selling out the constitution and deserving a bullseye. Glad we all now think that's not a good thing to be alleging. All accept for Lougher that is.
-
Sacha, in reply to
As for Kos, how quickly things change. Back in 2008 it was him who was accusing Giffords of selling out the constitution and deserving a bullseye.
And what was he calling for people to do about it?
You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don't expect help from the local party establishment, they'll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They'd love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women's groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment ... you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.
Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.
Reload?
-
And what was he calling for people to do about it?
I undertsand that the bullseye reference from Kos was meant to be metaphorical but apparently there are those, and here that would be liberal readers of Kos, who are nutty or wacko enough to go out and shoot someone.
-
And as for liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, he now thinks it's a good time to apologise for threatening violence against Hillary Clinton. Now, after 3 years. It was ok back then, wrong now. Maybe it was actually wong back then, there were a few people that said that.
-
Argh. This is exactly what I mean. It’s the knee-jerk moderatism of `how dare we imagine that a politically motivated assassination attempt might have been affected by high profile talk of politically motivated violence?’, coupled with the really quite offensive implication that we (or the dreaded `some people’) are using this in some kind of sly, underhanded way.
Wow, you're really reading a lot into some fairly normal level debate round here.
I believe you still need US proxy servers to view thedailyshow.com?
Nope. Or at least you didn't last year. Just go watch the clips individually in the video link. I've seen every daily show for the past... five or so years, about half of them through the web site, never had a US proxy.
-
Wow, you’re really reading a lot into some fairly normal level debate round here.
I don’t think I am really; I think saying : you (or some people, or whatever) are using this to get their hobby horses out, is in fact quite offensive*. The fact that Rich also asserted that he was the first to bring up the US’ history of political violence when, I would reckon, a third of the posts on the previous two pages discussed that exactly leaves me with very little charity.
* Especially given that Jessica Valenti, one of the writers Rich criticised, has in fact received death threats over her previous work. I would think it quite likely that seeing another woman in public life who has received death threats (and quite likely from some of the same kind of people) shot might lead you to quite a strong stance on such matters.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the bullseye reference from Kos was meant to be metaphorical
And again, there's a difference between a bullseye and a gunsight, metaphorically. Unless you're a fool.
-
* Especially given that Jessica Valenti, one of the writers Rich criticised, has in fact received death threats over her previous work. I would think it quite likely that seeing another woman in public life who has received death threats (and quite likely from some of the same kind of people) shot might lead you to quite a strong stance on such matters.
Wonder if Sarah Palin has ever had a death threat made against her?
-
I would be very surprised if she hasn't; in fact I would be very surprised if she hasn't had them over this (which, it needn't be said, is utterly deplorable, and disgusting, and etc etc). There's a point in here about how women in public life are treated.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I wouldn’t be either but it’s still there on the DLC site replete with “Behind Enemy Lines”.
For God’s sake, Neil please go look at that fucking sustained Malkin "Mummy, they do it too so stop being soooo mean" post. I’ll wait.
Now, please explain to me the equivalence between some far-left numpty at an anti-Bush rally six years ago who can’t even spell the vulgarisms on his placard and a PAC working on behalf of a woman who, two short years ago, Malkin considered fit to be Vice-President of the United States?
Something else – you might be aware that there will be a general election in New Zealand this year. Both National and Labour have “target” lists of key marginals, but I’ve never seen anything as downright creepy as a map with gunsights / cross-hairs / “surveyor’s marks” what-fraking-ever imposed on those electorates. I assure you that if that kind of crap comes across my desk from whoever is selected to contest North Shore, I will happily go on Public Address Radio and explain exactly why I’ll vote Labour for the first (and hopefully last) time in my life.
-
If she (as is hoped for) lives Congresswoman Giffords just might do very well out of these unfortunate events. She is now famous without having pursued of fame, this makes her modest. She has demonstrated courage in the face of credible death threats, this makes her brave. She has been shot in the head and could live, this makes her lucky. These are good qualities, even Presidential qualities.
-
Oh, and don’t forget any criticism of Palin or the Tea Party is the politics of blood libel. Yup, Glenn Reynolds (whose day job is being a tenured law professor at the University of Tennessee law school) did a drive-by equation of criticism of a public figure with poisonous anti-Semitism.
Where do I get the silly idea that the American right is impossible to take seriously?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And the 'Asian school ethic' doesn't always get it right. From my own experience, pressure to succeed often leads to two outcomes - insurrection or angst. And it didn't help that I had to put up with dozens of Paul Henrys-in-training at a fscking decile-11 high school.
In Japan, what Chua seems to favour has been previously cranked up to 11, and unfortunately the camel's back does get broken.I'm sure Tze Ming Mok will have a 2nd opinion on the whole issue.
-
I liked Yglesias' line: [o]n the list of problems typically experienced by the children of Yale Law School faculty “not successful enough” comes way below “has dysfunctional relationship with mother.”
(PS. Ms Chua's book World on Fire is actually pretty good. Somehow, sadly, I think the market for critiques of global capitalism is somewhat smaller than the market for batshit insane parenting books.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.