Thoughts on the Inane Political Reaction to San Bernardino

[maxparrish]

“In the present case it is a little inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in the Republic." (HL Mencken).

In the wake of the San Bernardino it was inevitable that the ruling political classes and their fellow-travelers would use the pain and grief of many as a mule for their causes. As of yet, none of the aspiring candidates have offered to drum major or grand marshall a mass funeral procession, to stand on the caskets and provide orations of rage, or lead a mob to a lynching in effigy of their favorite demon but rest assured some are thinking of doing so.

And herein may be the importance of this tragedy - it says less about American society and gun violence than it says about America's leaders and supportive political class. What might be an opportunity for shared grief and a reflective exchange is becoming a vulgar call against the usual political enemies with the usual jeers and cheers. Some do so because they truly embrace their manichean world views as totalizing - others merely because they are cynical jackal yowlers, seeing an opening to feed their pack with bones and meat.

But indulge me. Consider the blistering and cynical sprint to capitalize, before the bodies were cold (O'Malley edging out Hillary at 11:36 am yesterday):

I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H (Clinton) (https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/672139564346187776 …

Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino. Enough is enough: it's time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws (O'Malley).

Menchen might have asked "What kind of indecency, dishonesty, and lack of common sense" leads to these as the first reaction to exploit tragedy, long before any facts are known? That the shooters, weapons, motives, and targets were sketchy or unknown was irrelevant. Have politics have so consumed their lives that the only and most important expression of warmth or caring is, within a few hours, to tweet out the cadre's political call "we must take action against the NRA" slogan. Really?

So would the wounded clinging to life, or the dead (if they could speak), be enamored with our prospective leaders, within two hours using their pain and death as a get out the voters effort? What next, partisan jeers between those who attend the funerals? These are the "humans" we elect?

They want to lead - I get that. They want power, I get that too. The have no sense of guilt or shame, and are incapable of such feelings - fine. Their supporters mock expressions of sympathy and prayer, I get that too. And yes, dishonesty and nonsense is their stock and trade.

But decency... is it too much to ask for common decency...to show more warmth than a political slogan?

To be human? Apparently so.

 

[laughing dog]

How long is long enough to wait before one starts in on one's inane political reactions? For example, I didn't notice you spare much time.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On right winger radio, the posturing (OK, the ranting and raving) started even before the final shootout was over. Yeah baby. Only libruls posture politically on such things.

 

[credoconsolans]

How long does one have to wait to deplore yet another mass shooting?

 

[maxparrish]

How long is long enough to wait before one starts in on one's inane political reactions? For example, I didn't notice you spare much time.

1) I am not speaking of the fulminations of those on this board between posters. I am speaking of political leadership and their public opinion classes of America who presume to speak for the public.
2) There is never a time where inane reactions by leaders and this class are warranted.
3) None the less, I waited longer than Hillary Clinton and other Democrats before expressing my insightful views on SB.

Finally, your old trick of changing the subject to a personal attack on a poster won't do. Your ad hom insults of "what has happened to you Max" and "are you feeling well" sniping is tiresome - enough so that if you wish me to respond to you in the future you're going to have to start behaving a bit less cranky and a whole lot more civil.

 

[laughing dog]

How long is long enough to wait before one starts in on one's inane political reactions? For example, I didn't notice you spare much time.

1) I am not speaking of the fulminations of those on this board between posters. I am speaking of political leadership and their public opinion classes of America who presume to speak for the public.
2) There is never a time where inane reactions by leaders and this class are warranted.

Then you answered your own OP. And yet you blathered on about Hillary Clinton and Mike Mallory without commenting on any inanities from the other side of the aisle.

3) None the less, I waited longer than Hillary Clinton and other Democrats before expressing my insightful views on SB.

Not much longer. But to be fair, you made up for it in bigotry and inanity.

Finally, your old trick of changing the subject to a personal attack on a poster won't do. Your ad hom insults of "what has happened to you Max" and "are you feeling well" sniping is tiresome - enough so that if you wish me to respond to you in the future you're going to have to start behaving a bit less cranky and a whole lot more civil.

I am being civil. And I could care less if you respond to my posts. While I usually disagree with your views, IMO, the quality of your exposition has fallen dramatically. So I am sincerely concerned as to the cause of the clear decline in the quality of your posts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If everybody waited too long to react to mass shootings in the US, they'd have to wait some more due to another mass shooting.

 

[maxparrish]

On right winger radio, the posturing (OK, the ranting and raving) started even before the final shootout was over. Yeah baby. Only libruls posture politically on such things.

How long does one have to wait to deplore yet another mass shooting?

It depends. If you are a politician, civil leader, person of public stature, and member of the opinion hawking class you ought to show a smattering of common sense, decency, and integrity - something rather rare among those who embrace Harry Reid's first principle of lies "well, they worked didn't they"? (Although to Harry's credit, at least he was candid his indifference to honesty). One of the pre-requisites to acting with a bit of class in public (and to the survivors) is to know what the hell you are talking about before making a pull it from you ass pronouncement to the public.

And if you are a member of the hoi polloi one should reflect on the spirit of such behavior from "our betters" - what it says about the character and values of some folks and elites you may (or may not) support (or even a re-examination of the values you hold). In the other SB thread someone reproduced the front page of what may have been a photoshopped Daily News, the original being bad enough:

This front page echos the "character" of many on the left, including that of Hillary and Obama. There are really only two sets of immediately felt reactions - the first set is mocked on the front page. Anyone who expressed sorrow and sympathy to the victims, anyone who prayed for the suffering, were scum. And anyone (like many on this board) who were absorbing the gravity of this tragedy, speculating on its nature and motives, and were not ready to politicize this were "cowards".

The second reaction on the Daily Mail's front page (and the tweets previously quoted) - is totalizing politics without empathy...hair pulling without tears. Within hours the left was gingerly floating another planned parenthood "blame the right for expressing their opinions" and claiming that political opponents who could end the bloodshed are hiding cowards. And if you don't believe it, the DM will "scream" it at you.

The bottom line is that if these folks first reaction is not to feel and express sadness and compassion, but to turn everything into a insta-political oration to the public then either they are shameless and cynical or are unable to feel any sense of humanity except through launching a pre-emptive attack on those who might disagree. They have arrived at a point where their "compassion" is little more than anger, resentment, finger-pointing, envy, and revenge - a license to be vicious in the pursuit of the good.

 

[ImGod]

These were radical Muslim terrorists attacks in the same vain as the Paris attacks, just not as successful.

Comparing it to other shootings in the US is disengenuous. These weren't your typical Chicago inner city gangbangers.

The politicians should at least be able to separate the different issues when addressing how and why they want to remove constitutional rights. Equating Terrorism = Sandy Hook = gang violence = suicide makes them look stupid.

Oh well. Guns sales will rise once again. Because people realize politicians are stupid and they can't protect them.

 

[maxparrish]

1) I am not speaking of the fulminations of those on this board between posters. I am speaking of political leadership and their public opinion classes of America who presume to speak for the public.

2) There is never a time where inane reactions by leaders and this class are warranted.

Then you answered your own OP. And yet you blathered on about Hillary Clinton and Mike Mallory without commenting on any inanities from the other side of the aisle.

As the OP was never about 'how soon' or when "inane" (your term) reactions by leaders are warranted, I merely answered your question...inane reactions are never warranted.

Some of the actual question(s) I asked (some rhetorically) in the OP was "What kind of indecency, dishonesty, and lack of common sense" leads to these (tweets) as the first reaction to exploit tragedy, long before any facts are known? ... Have politics have so consumed their lives that the only and most important expression of warmth or caring is, within a few hours, to tweet out the cadre's political call "we must take action against the NRA" slogan. Really?"

The answer is, evidently, yes. And the reason I mentioned Hillary and O'Malley is because I am aware of those two individuals indecency and/or dishonesty in their tweets. If you are aware of others "on the other side of the aisle" who did the same in reaction to the SB shootings, please provide quotes and cite.

...to be fair, you made up for it in bigotry and inanity.

Uh...okay. I am still absorbing your "I am civil" posturing.

 

[bilby]

...
But indulge me.
...

Why should any sane person indulge you, as you rail against others doing the exact thing that you are yourself doing?

Your lack of self awareness in this OP is astounding.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some of the actual question(s) I asked (some rhetorically) in the OP was "What kind of indecency, dishonesty, and lack of common sense" leads to these (tweets) as the first reaction to exploit tragedy, long before any facts are known? ... Have politics have so consumed their lives that the only and most important expression of warmth or caring is, within a few hours, to tweet out the cadre's political call "we must take action against the NRA" slogan. Really?"

I heard the same hypocritical bullshit on Fox News. Conservatives were also pushing a message about anti-Muslim xenophobia and pro-Christian values. They then acted offended when Obama did it over guns. The main difference being that we knew guns were definitely involved but interpretation of different stories of motives were coming in from witnesses, including one in which it was said it was workplace violence. In any case, it's not that conservatives are getting their panties in a wad over Obama speaking too soon, it's that they didn't like what he had to say. And the pundits get their power from taking advantage of tragedies every day.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How long does one have to wait to deplore yet another mass shooting?

This^.

The phenomenon is old now. It's not surprising and it's even losing its shock value. This will be out of the news cycle in a couple of weeks, if not sooner should another mass shooting rival or exceed the horror of this latest one.

We're well past the point of being shocked. So it is only rational to discuss how to prevent it. The problem is, people don't really want to prevent it. If they wanted to, there would be a nationwide call for massive gun control. But there isn't. And apparently there won't be.

IMHO, Sandy Hook was the yardstick. If something was going to happen with gun control, that would have been the catalyst. If it would have been a movie it would have been decried as depraved and exploitative. But it really happened and here we are and nothing's changed.

At this point, if one is not for very strong gun reform laws, then they tacitly support not only mass shootings but the other 11,000+ murders that occur from firearms every year in the U.S.

 

[Nexus]

The problem is, people don't really want to prevent it. If they wanted to, there would be a nationwide call for massive gun control.

The recent mass shooting in Paris disproves your strawman here. Since massive gun control didn't prevent the Paris shootings obviously there are other reasons for people against gun control than a desire to not prevent shootings.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The problem is, people don't really want to prevent it. If they wanted to, there would be a nationwide call for massive gun control.

The recent mass shooting in Paris disproves your strawman here. Since massive gun control didn't prevent the Paris shootings...

Gun control isn't supposed to PREVENT mass shootings. It's supposed to make mass shootings a rare, uncommon event that can only be carried out by a gang of highly organized criminals who would have to take some extraordinary means to obtain their weapons, as opposed to a scattershot distribution of deranged maniacs who can get guns from just about anywhere.

It doesn't make the Paris Massacre impossible. It makes it very very RARE.

obviously there are other reasons for people against gun control than a desire to not prevent shootings.

"Obviously" nothing. It's VERY clear that there's a culture of ambivalence about gun violence among gun rights advocates. They deliberately under-state the risk and then change the subject when asked to consider it. The general theme is that the potential risks of gun violence are ALWAYS far less, in the minds of gun nuts, than the benefits of their ownership. Many of those benefits are purely imaginary, but the ones that matter most are entirely subjective: "I like guns" is the only coherent argument they really have. "I like guns more than I dislike mass shootings" is the only justification for the lack of effective gun control.

 

[Nexus]

Gun control isn't supposed to PREVENT mass shootings.

Then you shouldn't have used the strawman that people don't want to prevent mass shootings unless they accept massive gun control. Its also a false dilemma premise. Mexico has more mass shootings and murder than the US despite massive gun control.

Legal availability of guns is only one part of the issue of violent crime in a country. Anti-gun nuts confuse correlation with causation. Violence is multifaceted.

The general theme is that the potential risks of gun violence are ALWAYS far less, in the minds of gun nuts, than the benefits of their ownership. Many of those benefits are purely imaginary, but the ones that matter most are entirely subjective: "I like guns" is the only coherent argument they really have. "I like guns more than I dislike mass shootings" is the only justification for the lack of effective gun control.

More strawmen characterizations of pro-gun arguments. Here's an actual pro-gun argument.

The risks of gun violence are primarily drug/gang related. Since I don't deal drugs or hang around dealers or gang members my personal potential risk from is far less than a cursory look at the statistics would indicate leaving me with mostly the benefits of gun ownership ie the ability to defend myself from bigger stronger and tougher multiple attackers.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

So what was this shooting about anyway? muslims, terror, or other??

 

[TV and credit cards]

How long does one have to wait to deplore yet another mass shooting?

This^.

The phenomenon is old now. It's not surprising and it's even losing its shock value. This will be out of the news cycle in a couple of weeks, if not sooner should another mass shooting rival or exceed the horror of this latest one.

We're well past the point of being shocked. So it is only rational to discuss how to prevent it. The problem is, people don't really want to prevent it. If they wanted to, there would be a nationwide call for massive gun control. But there isn't. And apparently there won't be.

IMHO, Sandy Hook was the yardstick. If something was going to happen with gun control, that would have been the catalyst. If it would have been a movie it would have been decried as depraved and exploitative. But it really happened and here we are and nothing's changed.

At this point, if one is not for very strong gun reform laws, then they tacitly support not only mass shootings but the other 11,000+ murders that occur from firearms every year in the U.S.

I used to think this also. But perhaps there is still hope. One more terrible tragedy so egregious that our politicians will sweep the gun lobby aside and say, enough! Of course, I am talking about shopping. When Americans are afraid to go out to shop, to restaurants, the casinos and bars, perhaps then our politicians will take notice.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The recent mass shooting in Paris disproves your strawman here. Since massive gun control didn't prevent the Paris shootings...

Gun control isn't supposed to PREVENT mass shootings. It's supposed to make mass shootings a rare, uncommon event that can only be carried out by a gang of highly organized criminals who would have to take some extraordinary means to obtain their weapons, as opposed to a scattershot distribution of deranged maniacs who can get guns from just about anywhere.

It doesn't make the Paris Massacre impossible. It makes it very very RARE.

obviously there are other reasons for people against gun control than a desire to not prevent shootings.

"Obviously" nothing. It's VERY clear that there's a culture of ambivalence about gun violence among gun rights advocates. They deliberately under-state the risk and then change the subject when asked to consider it. The general theme is that the potential risks of gun violence are ALWAYS far less, in the minds of gun nuts, than the benefits of their ownership. Many of those benefits are purely imaginary, but the ones that matter most are entirely subjective: "I like guns" is the only coherent argument they really have. "I like guns more than I dislike mass shootings" is the only justification for the lack of effective gun control.

Agreed. And when you couple this with the US's ability to surveil it's own people, you have the makings of one heck of a secure state. If that's what you're going for.

 

[SimpleDon]

“In the present case it is a little inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible to any public office of trust or profit in the Republic." (HL Mencken).

In the wake of the San Bernardino it was inevitable that the ruling political classes and their fellow-travelers would use the pain and grief of many as a mule for their causes. As of yet, none of the aspiring candidates have offered to drum major or grand marshall a mass funeral procession, to stand on the caskets and provide orations of rage, or lead a mob to a lynching in effigy of their favorite demon but rest assured some are thinking of doing so.

And herein may be the importance of this tragedy - it says less about American society and gun violence than it says about America's leaders and supportive political class. What might be an opportunity for shared grief and a reflective exchange is becoming a vulgar call against the usual political enemies with the usual jeers and cheers. Some do so because they truly embrace their manichean world views as totalizing - others merely because they are cynical jackal yowlers, seeing an opening to feed their pack with bones and meat.

But indulge me. Consider the blistering and cynical sprint to capitalize, before the bodies were cold (O'Malley edging out Hillary at 11:36 am yesterday):

I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H (Clinton) (https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/672139564346187776 …

Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino. Enough is enough: it's time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws (O'Malley).

Menchen might have asked "What kind of indecency, dishonesty, and lack of common sense" leads to these as the first reaction to exploit tragedy, long before any facts are known? That the shooters, weapons, motives, and targets were sketchy or unknown was irrelevant. Have politics have so consumed their lives that the only and most important expression of warmth or caring is, within a few hours, to tweet out the cadre's political call "we must take action against the NRA" slogan. Really?

So would the wounded clinging to life, or the dead (if they could speak), be enamored with our prospective leaders, within two hours using their pain and death as a get out the voters effort? What next, partisan jeers between those who attend the funerals? These are the "humans" we elect?

They want to lead - I get that. They want power, I get that too. The have no sense of guilt or shame, and are incapable of such feelings - fine. Their supporters mock expressions of sympathy and prayer, I get that too. And yes, dishonesty and nonsense is their stock and trade.

But decency... is it too much to ask for common decency...to show more warmth than a political slogan?

To be human? Apparently so.

It is reasonable to wait to reflect on these events, to provide time to understand them and to morn the loss. The problem is that we seem to have so little time to wait after one of these mass shootings before another one occurs.

It is natural to try to find solutions to problems. So the natural question that has to asked of you is, do you think that these mass shootings constitute a problem? And do you see a solution for it?