Shots in the Dark

Yale is #1 in hockey. Yay.

The Times and WashPo both analyze Sarah Palin’s response to the Arizona shootings and its possible effect on her political future.

Here’s the Post:

John Weaver, a GOP strategist, said Palin is being held to a different standard precisely because she may have presidential aspirations.

“You can’t put the actions of this insane person on her doorstep or anyone’s doorstep,” he said in Palin’s defense. But, he added, “having said that, there’s a difference between how people judge the conduct of a blogger and a political leader or someone who may want to run for president of the United States.”

I think the first part of the quote is over-broad, because the dynamic between rhetoric and action—even the action of an “insane” person—is not irrelevant here. We just don’t know whether Palin and her “RELOAD” rhetoric and infamous crosshairs map affected Jared Loughner in any way. Still, it’s true: You can’t put this “at her doorstep.”

But the second part of that quote strikes me as spot on. Palin is part of this situation, and she can’t just respond with emails to Glenn Beck, Twitter posts and surrogates delivering angry rebuttals.

Rebecca Mansour, an adviser to Palin, told radio host Tammy Bruce that the criticism of Palin and her list was “obscene.” She added that the target list was not meant as a reference to guns. “We never ever, ever intended it to be cross hairs,” she said.

Her explanation overlooked the fact that Palin had earlier described the symbol as a bull’s-eye.

Both the Post and the Times describe the deeply irritating email Palin wrote to Glenn Beck.

“What’s different about this moment is the emergence of a political culture — on blogs and Twitter and cable television — that so loudly and readily reinforces the dark visions of political extremists, often for profit or political gain. It wasn’t clear Saturday whether the alleged shooter in Tucson was motivated by any real political philosophy or by voices in his head, or perhaps by both. But it’s hard not to think he was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.”

—Matt Bai, writing in the NYT

That’s the title of Jeffrey Goldberg’s post on TheAtlantic.com.

Goldberg’s thinking is confused:

It seems fairly obvious so far that the terrible massacre in Arizona is less about Tea Party politics and more about mental illness, and how the mentally ill gain possession of handguns. This could change radically, of course, in the coming hours and days…

It is probably far easier to categorize him in psychiatric terms. That said, of course it is true that hostile, violent political rhetoric on cable TV and on the Internet provides fodder and comfort to the mentally ill.…

To me, this argument constructs a false dichotomy between politics and mental illness. Where do we draw the line and say what parts of Jared Loughner are healthy or sick, sane and insane?

(After all, is no part of him coherent? Cogent?)

Moreover, how can we say that right-wing politics of hate and anger, with a violent undercurrent, weren’t part of what contributed to this man’s descent into paranoia (or whatever it was)?

This is the point: That when you create a climate of fear, hatred and violence, as the Tea Party and various Republicans have been doing for the past two years or so, you might well contribute to the destabilizing of people teetering on the brink. And you might fill them with a suggestion (a target, for example?) of what they should do.

Which is why it’s probably a good idea not to use images of violence and murder (“Reload”) when you’re talking about the proper mode of expressing political dissent…

And I’m not the only one to think this way:

‘When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,’ Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference…

To suggest that there’s no dialectic between personal psychosis and the external environment is bizarre, and I seriously doubt that most theories of mental illness would concur with that argument.

That nine-year-old girl killed by Jared Loughner?

Her name is was Christina Taylor Greene, and according to the Arizona Republic, she was born on 9/11/2023.

“It was probably not the best idea to run toward the gunshots, but people needed help.”

—20-year-old intern Daniel Hernandez, who may have saved Gabrielle Gifford’s life.

An Arizona Democratic congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, is shot in the head, one of 18 wounded and six killed in an assassination attempt.

During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map.

Whatever happens to Giffords—and let us all hope she survives and recovers to the extent possible—this is the end of Sarah Palin.

You know, the more you read about him, the more Julian Assange sounds like a complete jerk, and maybe worse.

I don’t think this is the guy that transparency advocates want to bet the ranch on….

That didn’t take long: A few days after leaving the White House, Larry Summers is headed to Bermuda. But it’s not just for romping on the beach! No, he’ll be speaking at the 17th Annual Bermuda Global Hedge Fund Summit.

No question, the guy’s worked hard the past few years. But can’t one wait at least a little while before cashing in on public service?

Apparently Friday is the day of videos of humans doing stupid but sort of wonderful things.

Don’t try this at your condo.