![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY THE ONLY POST WE'RE DOING ON THE ARIZONA SHOOTINGS
Guest commentary from Team Def Political Batshit Science Editor, Lucky Bensonhurst.
MEMO
13JAN11
From: Team Def Political Batshit Science Dept
re: Who shot Gabby Giffords?
People often ask me, “How did you get yr start as a hack political journalist?”
The answer is painfully simple: instinct. Something about elected officials and “experts” jabbering inane batshit about a given topic or event compels me to find the nearest typewriter, feed it with paper and pound out 8,000 words of correctional perspective in an effort to make sense of it all.
Granted, it reads like demented profane gibberish. But hey, it’s a living. And I feel much better afterwards. It’s like scream therapy for white Bengal tigers, only it requires a serious manicure budget.
The recent news of Jared Lee Loughner shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head along with another nineteen people (six dead, including a nine-year-old girl) offers a contemporary example of why I have no choice in my career path.
I have been sitting in front of my Whackintosh for the past few days, making phone calls, doing research, eating ravioli out of the can and drinking coffee straight out of the pot (as true journalists do). And now here I am, pounding away on this goddamn beautiful, durable beast of a laptop, for no other reason that I am weary of the “debate” over the Gifford shootings (and by “debate” I mean “hardcore liberals and conservatives pointing at each other screaming ‘THIS IS ALL YR FAULT, YOU EVIL BASTARDS!’ ”) and I feel compelled to offer some reasoned perspective just to see what will happen when my contact list reads it.
As usual.
Anyway. After careful analysis of the situation, here are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
1. Sarah Palin didn’t order anyone killed
This may come as a disappointment to those who hate the woman and her entire family, I know. But this half-assed meme that Palin encouraged Tea Partiers to shoot Democrats via her cross-hair imagery and her general Take Back America rhetoric – or at the very least bears some responsibility for Loughner’s actions – is reactionary wishful thinking from people who want her political career (and possible 2012 presidential run) derailed and ruined forever.
If you believe Palin and her ilk planted the seed, you might as well argue that that Ozzy Osbourne is responsible for every fan who kills himself after listening to “Suicide Solution” one too many times. Because the logic is pretty much the same.
If Palin is guilty of anything, it’s being a political hack, a poor liar (surveyor’s marks, indeed) and a drama queen (blood libel, my furry ass). The same goes for most of the other right-wing demagogues that Palin associates with. Which brings us to:
2. Toxic batshit flows on both sides of the political sewer.
None of the above is to say that political discourse hasn’t devolved into a toxic pit of batshit paranoia (though that’s been true for centuries), or that the nightmare socialist scenarios that characters like Glenn Beck cook up every day in the name of news-entertainment has no bearing on this whatsoever.
Which is why I have no sympathy for Palin and the others complaining that everyone’s making a big deal of the fact that they do stuff like, say, describe liberals as “dangerous” who want to “destroy” America. They’re right to say there’s no direct connection between any of that and Loughner’s actions (because there isn’t, so far as we know), but when you or yr associates make a point of bringing guns to rallies protesting the opposition on the grounds that I-Am-Constitutionally-Allowed-To-Carry-A-Gun-Anywhere-I-Want-Fuck-You, you don’t get to act surprised and indignant that people might see a parallel between bringing a gun to a political event, and bringing a gun to a political event and shooting people with it.
That said, if toxic politics can be said to be a significant factor at all, both sides get to shoulder some blame. The knee-jerk blame game that immediately followed the shootings makes that clear. And while I’m sure someone somewhere probably has a chart to show that the Right wing does it more than the Left wing, that still doesn’t prove that the AZ victims would still be alive if only the Tea Party never existed and Glenn Beck had chosen a career in the textile industry instead of broadcasting. Which brings us to:
3. Political shootings often have little to do with actual politics.
James Fallows has already made this point for me, but in essence the lessons from American history are clear: politicians are typically shot for political reasons, but the reasons typically don’t reflect the current political positions of any known political party.
Put another way, whatever Loughner was thinking when he pulled the trigger, it likely wasn’t anything you’d find in the current mission statement of the GOP, the Democratic Party or even the Tea Party. It may turn out to be Jodie Foster again, for all we know. So there’s little point trying to pin this on a given party/political wing/cable TV pundit’s talking points.
4. I’m wasting my time typing this.
At least I would be if my goal was to persuade the True Believers to calm the fuck down, get over themselves and direct that anger into something positive. Like stop pretending the opposition is run by secret Nazis bent on locking you up in concentration camps. Or knitting. Whatever keeps you busy.
But as I said, this is therapy. Because I know better. True Believers as a rule never give up and would rather go down swinging than admit they’re wrong (or worse, that the other side might be right), and will always be able to find “clues” proving their case. They’re entitled, of course. But I’m not paid to prove them wrong, or to prove myself right, as far as that goes.
Meanwhile, the fallout over the Gifford shootings is evidence of how far gone American Politics is – at least as it’s portrayed on television, which has always thrived on a good scrap. It says a lot that the most sensible commentary on the shootings has come from Jon Stewart (the 28th Most Dangerous Liberal In America, incidentally, according to Townhall.com), who correctly pointed out that the shooting – and the overall political climate in which it took place – is far too complex for anyone to reasonably conclude that “A” led directly to “B”, and that “B” would never have happened if there was no “A”.
But then Stewart can say that because The Daily Show not a cable news program, which means he doesn’t have to dumb down complex stories into simplistic either/or one-liners.
And so much for that.
Time to brew another pot of coffee and ravioli, sit back and wait for Keith Olbermann to call so we can shout at each other in pompous accents. It relaxes us.
– L. Bensonhurst
MEMO
13JAN11
From: Team Def Political Batshit Science Dept
re: Who shot Gabby Giffords?
People often ask me, “How did you get yr start as a hack political journalist?”
The answer is painfully simple: instinct. Something about elected officials and “experts” jabbering inane batshit about a given topic or event compels me to find the nearest typewriter, feed it with paper and pound out 8,000 words of correctional perspective in an effort to make sense of it all.
Granted, it reads like demented profane gibberish. But hey, it’s a living. And I feel much better afterwards. It’s like scream therapy for white Bengal tigers, only it requires a serious manicure budget.
The recent news of Jared Lee Loughner shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head along with another nineteen people (six dead, including a nine-year-old girl) offers a contemporary example of why I have no choice in my career path.
I have been sitting in front of my Whackintosh for the past few days, making phone calls, doing research, eating ravioli out of the can and drinking coffee straight out of the pot (as true journalists do). And now here I am, pounding away on this goddamn beautiful, durable beast of a laptop, for no other reason that I am weary of the “debate” over the Gifford shootings (and by “debate” I mean “hardcore liberals and conservatives pointing at each other screaming ‘THIS IS ALL YR FAULT, YOU EVIL BASTARDS!’ ”) and I feel compelled to offer some reasoned perspective just to see what will happen when my contact list reads it.
As usual.
Anyway. After careful analysis of the situation, here are the conclusions I’ve drawn:
1. Sarah Palin didn’t order anyone killed
This may come as a disappointment to those who hate the woman and her entire family, I know. But this half-assed meme that Palin encouraged Tea Partiers to shoot Democrats via her cross-hair imagery and her general Take Back America rhetoric – or at the very least bears some responsibility for Loughner’s actions – is reactionary wishful thinking from people who want her political career (and possible 2012 presidential run) derailed and ruined forever.
If you believe Palin and her ilk planted the seed, you might as well argue that that Ozzy Osbourne is responsible for every fan who kills himself after listening to “Suicide Solution” one too many times. Because the logic is pretty much the same.
If Palin is guilty of anything, it’s being a political hack, a poor liar (surveyor’s marks, indeed) and a drama queen (blood libel, my furry ass). The same goes for most of the other right-wing demagogues that Palin associates with. Which brings us to:
2. Toxic batshit flows on both sides of the political sewer.
None of the above is to say that political discourse hasn’t devolved into a toxic pit of batshit paranoia (though that’s been true for centuries), or that the nightmare socialist scenarios that characters like Glenn Beck cook up every day in the name of news-entertainment has no bearing on this whatsoever.
Which is why I have no sympathy for Palin and the others complaining that everyone’s making a big deal of the fact that they do stuff like, say, describe liberals as “dangerous” who want to “destroy” America. They’re right to say there’s no direct connection between any of that and Loughner’s actions (because there isn’t, so far as we know), but when you or yr associates make a point of bringing guns to rallies protesting the opposition on the grounds that I-Am-Constitutionally-Allowed-To-Carry-A-Gun-Anywhere-I-Want-Fuck-You, you don’t get to act surprised and indignant that people might see a parallel between bringing a gun to a political event, and bringing a gun to a political event and shooting people with it.
That said, if toxic politics can be said to be a significant factor at all, both sides get to shoulder some blame. The knee-jerk blame game that immediately followed the shootings makes that clear. And while I’m sure someone somewhere probably has a chart to show that the Right wing does it more than the Left wing, that still doesn’t prove that the AZ victims would still be alive if only the Tea Party never existed and Glenn Beck had chosen a career in the textile industry instead of broadcasting. Which brings us to:
3. Political shootings often have little to do with actual politics.
James Fallows has already made this point for me, but in essence the lessons from American history are clear: politicians are typically shot for political reasons, but the reasons typically don’t reflect the current political positions of any known political party.
Put another way, whatever Loughner was thinking when he pulled the trigger, it likely wasn’t anything you’d find in the current mission statement of the GOP, the Democratic Party or even the Tea Party. It may turn out to be Jodie Foster again, for all we know. So there’s little point trying to pin this on a given party/political wing/cable TV pundit’s talking points.
4. I’m wasting my time typing this.
At least I would be if my goal was to persuade the True Believers to calm the fuck down, get over themselves and direct that anger into something positive. Like stop pretending the opposition is run by secret Nazis bent on locking you up in concentration camps. Or knitting. Whatever keeps you busy.
But as I said, this is therapy. Because I know better. True Believers as a rule never give up and would rather go down swinging than admit they’re wrong (or worse, that the other side might be right), and will always be able to find “clues” proving their case. They’re entitled, of course. But I’m not paid to prove them wrong, or to prove myself right, as far as that goes.
Meanwhile, the fallout over the Gifford shootings is evidence of how far gone American Politics is – at least as it’s portrayed on television, which has always thrived on a good scrap. It says a lot that the most sensible commentary on the shootings has come from Jon Stewart (the 28th Most Dangerous Liberal In America, incidentally, according to Townhall.com), who correctly pointed out that the shooting – and the overall political climate in which it took place – is far too complex for anyone to reasonably conclude that “A” led directly to “B”, and that “B” would never have happened if there was no “A”.
But then Stewart can say that because The Daily Show not a cable news program, which means he doesn’t have to dumb down complex stories into simplistic either/or one-liners.
And so much for that.
Time to brew another pot of coffee and ravioli, sit back and wait for Keith Olbermann to call so we can shout at each other in pompous accents. It relaxes us.
– L. Bensonhurst