He should learn that sometimes simple is better, as Congressman Jeff Flake showed us with this statement:

On the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shooting, we mourn those who were lost, continue to pray for those who were wounded, and take solace in the fact that out of tragedy, our spirit as a community, a state, and a nation has been made stronger.

Montini might have learned not to condemn as complicit individuals who had no connection to the event what-so-ever. He chooses instead to refocus the blame on political ads, which is exactly the muddy thinking that lead to Sarah Palin being demonized as making Gabriel Giffords a target. Instead, despite the preponderance of evidence that has come forward to show Jared Loughner was neither politically motivated nor aware of Palin’s “target map”, Montini chooses to stick with the meme that fits his political agenda. An agenda that finds any words of disagreement from the Right to be “inflamatory”, and the most vile and threatening words & images from the Left to simply represent “impassioned speech”

He might have learned that in the name of civil rights, we have failed the mentally disturbed and those who may eventually fall victim to them. Instead he dismisses Loughner’s illness and points instead to the “ugly discourse over immigration”, something that had no bearing on the shooter or his life.

He might have learned that public officials, particularly those who try to have an open communion with their constituency, would be well served by some sort of personal protection*.

He might have learned that when law enforcement is tasked with being the only line of defense, a Sheriff who fails to act despite repeated warnings & inquiries needs to be removed from his post. Particularly when the sherrif then proceeds to also blame rhetoric and newly minted laws, despite knowing that his office had willfully dropped the ball on stopping Loughner BEFORE he took 6 lives and altered so many more.

He might have learned that, when a person has shown an undue & uncomfortable fascination with another human (whether ‘famous’ or not), we do them no favors by brushing it off. Better Gifford’s staff had reacted to his letters & videos rather than believe him to be harmless.

Gabriel Giffords was shot for the same reason Rebecca Schaeffer was shot, some screwed up kid from Tucson got fixated on her.

In Giffords’ case, though the fixation was not romantic, the trigger was the same. He reacted violently when she did not respond as he hoped to his perceived relationship with her. He felt she disrespected him and made her pay.

* There was a mention after this shooting that Pamela Gorman, at that time a Phoenix area politician who made national news with a volunteer produced YouTube video showing her firing a plethora of firearms, would not likely have been the victim of such an act. Though there is no doubt a working knowledge of firearms goes a long way to protecting life in the event of threat, sometimes there is no time to act.

From the accounts I heard at the time, Lougher approached Giffords with the gun under his coat. When he was in very close proximity, he pulled it out and fired, first at her head, then at the rest of the crowd. When he ran out of bullets and attempted to reload, he was tackled and subdued. Had that exact scenario played out at a Gorman event, neither she not her constituents would have had time to act prior to that first shot.

What would surely have been different is what happened next, as her crowd would more likely be armed – and more likely practiced with their weapons. No one is suggesting a bunch of folks would have, or should have, started firing at Loughner immediately. That sort of reaction might have made an already chaotic situation even worse. However, responsible gun owners who carry for self-defense practice scenarios that require an intelligent assessment of the environment – for instance, in the midst of a crowd.

What likely would have been different is the ability of an armed man to get through the crowd and close to the candidate. A group of 2nd Amendment enthusiasts would also be more likely to be aware of their surroundings, more likely to be alert for threats, more likely to notice a gun, and more likely to be willing to act to stop someone before the day turns deadly.

{Still need to find some links for the facts in this post, if you have ‘em handy, drop them in the comments}

UPDATE: Warner Todd Huston takes NPR to task for the same offense: Falsely Blaming Giffords’ Shooting on Uncivil Political Rhetoric

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Seven Falls, Tucson

It does, however, seem to be getting quite popular on the left

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Another Reason To Hate Apple

This man is running for the highest office in the land, he has a long resume of production & success, he is spelling out a specific plan to fix the economy*, he is consistently polling at or near the top of a crowded field…

And the only thing the “news” anchors care to ask him about is the color of his skin, or whether he is a traitor to others who share his skin tone.**

I said before that Obama was the antithesis of Martin Luther King Jr’s dream; he was judged only by the color of his skin, any attempt to suss out the content of his character was soundly rejected. (Which Obama and his supporters encouraged, screaming racism at any question of his experience or competence)

Herman Cain is withstanding a great deal of actual racism in his bid for the presidency, other than taking the bait re: Perry’s lodge, he has done a good job of bringing the subject back to what really makes him tick – and it isn’t his skin tone.

How about we treat skin color as we would hair color or height; a distinguishing feature, sure, but one which has no bearing whatsoever on how a person thinks or feels. Lets judge the individual on his merits, not his melanin.

This is something true Conservatives already know.

* Whether Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is the right plan is not germane to my point.

** Don’t even get me started on the “celebrities” who say he is not really black because of his success & beliefs, or that any Republican who supports him does so because they are racist

Possibly Related Posts:

1. On Hope, Change & “Uppity Negroes”
2. Losers Law in #AZsen Race
3. White Lie

First off – the tip came from a psychic. Yes, a psychic called the police and they went to investigate based only on that evidence. Oh yeah, and they first went to another property where they found nothing – and the psychic called back to tell them they went to the wrong place. So they went back out – based on a tip from a psychic.

Let that sink in.

When law enforcement arrived at the second home, they found what they thought might be blood on the back door and residents who were “uncooperative”. You know what? The cops show up at your door and want to do a search because they got a tip from a psychic, I would imagine you would be less than hospitable, too.

The blood was easily explained by an earlier incident that the local police were aware of – a suicide attempt by an AWOL soldier, who was then placed into a military psychiatric hospital in Killeen. The sheriff’s department had a report on file.

Somehow they convinced a judge to issue a search warrant based on that ridiculously flimsy evidence – psychic tip, dried blood.

During the entire ordeal, major news outlets were reporting that a mass grave had already been uncovered. A mass grave with 25-30 dismembered bodies, many of them children. Not blogs, not Twitter – MAJOR news outlets that pride themselves on their credibility. (As @ExJon said: Prediction: Within 10 minutes, reporters who fell for a psychic’s claim about a mass grave will start calling Palin stupid again.)

Comments on the story on most news sites I visited, as well as the one radio host I heard mention it, overwhelmingly blamed the death toll on our unsecured border with Mexico, on Mexicans, on D.C.’s unwillingness to stop the flood of illegal immigration.

First – just stupid on it’s face. Yes, the drug war and illegal immigration have both resulted in some tragic violence, but not every gory crime scene in a southern state is connected to crimes in Mexico.

Second – the location of the supposed carnage is a city to the north & east of Houston. A very long way from any Mexican border town. C’mon people – get some perspective.

(Sorry, rambling, stream of consciousness while watching TV)

UPDATE: From The Houston Chronicle Wait, what? Texas sheriffs now acting on tips from psychics?

His conversion began because:

He saw he was Talking Left and Living Right, a condition common among American liberals, particularly the wealthy among them, who can, for instance, want to impose diversity requirements on private companies while living in monochromatic neighborhoods, or vote against school vouchers while sending their kids to prep school, or shelter their income while advocating higher tax rates. The widening gap between liberal politics and liberal life became real to him when, paradoxically enough, he decided at last to write a political play, or rather a play about politics. It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period.

“This was after the 2004 election,” he told me in an interview last month. “I’d never met a conservative. I didn’t know what a conservative was. I didn’t know much of anything.”*

Aided by the work of Sowell & Friedman, Mamet allowed himself to see the country away from the group think of his upbringing and his profession.

He wondered:

“How did the system function so well? Because it does—the system functions beautifully.” How did the happiest, freest, and most prosperous country in history sprout from the Hobbesian jungle?

“I realized it was because of this thing, this miracle, this U.S. Constitution.” The separation of powers, the guarantee of property, the freedoms of speech and religion meant that self-interested citizens had a system in which they could hammer out their differences without killing each other. Everyone who wanted to could get ahead. The Founders had accepted the tragic view of life and, as it were, made it pay.

Indeed – this thing, this miracle, this U.S. Constitution. If only more people recognized it’s beauty – and it’s genius.

* All excerpts from Converting Mamet:A playwright’s progress by Andrew Ferguson in The Weekly Standard. Go read it all.

Oh, and here’s a bonus gem from a speech he gave at Stanford that was none too kind on the subject of higher education

“If we identify every interaction as having a victim and an oppressor, and we get a pellet when we find the victims, we’re training ourselves not to see cause and effect”

Excuse me while I go place my pre-order with Amazon

I went to see this with a group; we had all levels of interest from “never read the book, no familiarity with Rand or Objectivism” to “read the book several times and have passages memorized” I am in the middle of that spectrum, having read the book 20-some years ago and being “Rand curious”. I am far right enough to embrace many, though not all, of her philosophies.

I’ve been looking forward to this movie almost since I read the book. Through the decades several casting choices were floated, some that seemed promising, some not so much. In the end, the lead roles went to “lesser known” actors (though you will recognize most of their faces).

Overall, I think they did well. I am gratified that Hank Rearden looks the part; truly a rugged individual, a man’s man. Some of the lesser characters were spot on; the sneering Lillian, the sniveling Phil, the snarling Ellis, the snakey Paul.

I was a slightly disappointed by Dagny. Regardless of her obvious hotness, her acting left something to be desired. A bit weak in her portrayal of such a strong woman, a bit wooden in her reactions to triumph & tragedy. The role would be a tough one to cast in the best of circumstances, but for a production with limited funds and even less acceptance by “Hollywood”, the actors willing to take part may have been scarce. Still, she did well and, should they decide to make the future installments, she may grow into the part.

Some worried the production would suffer from a low budget; in fact, many of the pre-opening ‘reviews’ made a great deal of snarky hay about that problem. The issues suffered by the final product seem to have little to do with funding and more to do with a novice director. The scenes involving dialogue are a bit cramped, even awkward on occasion. The scenes involving the great outdoors are beautiful, but those involving the disintegrating cities are not quite gritty enough. And the limos. *drink* Limos driving down the street. Conversations in limos. Limos pulling up to the curb. Limos pulling away from the curb. *drink*

As far as conveying the message, I thought perhaps it was a bit heavy-handed (not a lot, but a bit – and the book was, too). However, I already know big government is bad, I already know how prophetically Rand’s story parallels the path America is on. For someone unfamiliar with the grand ideas of personal responsibility and individual greatness, maybe they will need to be hit with a 2 X 4.

I definitely recommend it, and I recommend you see it in a theater. There is something to be said for seeing an experience film with an enthusiastic crowd. Saturday at the Valley Art brought audiences who waited in long lines before the movie and applauded after. A rare thing, indeed.

UPDATE: Danno points out that in all those limo scenes, it is only the business types – not the government fat cats who would clearly be indulging in the luxury, as well.

More of our AZ bloggers thoughts on the film after today’s viewing:
Great Satan, Inc
Exurban League
SandCastle Scrolls

Also:
Ed Morrisey at Hot Air

Brian Doherty re: Taylor Schilling “She had moments where she conveyed the lithe, restrained, passionate steel of Dagny, but didn’t do so every moment. Some of her line readings fell flat, some of her expressions were too blank or sometimes too light and sunny. In what might count as a backhanded insult, she sometimes seemed too much like a normal human being for a Randian romantic heroine.”

Cross posted at Word of Mouth Scale

Tough, organized, good messenger with a clear message. The national committee needs to find a way to appeal to the base again – I think she may be able to do that.

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Election Results
2. Election Turnout

But, there was this pull quote that caught my eye:

“People expect something out of the image you project. Ricky Martin, the Latin sound, he’s supposed to be very masculine”

Excuse me, but…WHAT? On what planet has Ricky Martin ever been considered “very masculine”?

“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest,” it says. “Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee.”

If there was anyone in the country who thought Olbermann was “an impartial journalist”, they probably still have an 8-track player in their car. You would have to be living under a rock to have any lingering doubts about his leanings.

NBC is well within their rights to fire or suspend Olbermann, I think they should have done it long ago. But cut him loose because his ratings suck, or because he is odious, because he is wrong way more often the not, because he is a bloviating ass, because he alienates a majority of the potential American viewing audience, leaving you squarely in last place.

But because he made above board donations to candidates that share his worldview? Ridiculous – and almost as offensive as Olbermann himself.

UPDATE: I do buy the “He knew the rules and chose to violate them – therefore he knew the risks” Absolutely. As I said, well within their rights to punish him, but to make some claim that these donations somehow blew his cover, or theirs, as impartial is ludicrous.

UPDATE: It seems Bill Kristol agrees – somewhat

1) Twitter comments about blog posts. It is great in the sense that the comments are broadcast to a much larger audience, but the conversation is short ~ and short-lived. Not only are readers trying to make their point in 140 characters (or across several Tweets, another peeve) but those points are lost in just a few days. Instead of a ‘group’ conversation on the post, you have several one-to-one exchanges so some good points get lost in the plethora of tweets flying past.

2) Subscription fees for commenting. I know several blogs that require the creation of an account before you can comment. I have resisted that in most cases because I see no reason for me to subscribe when I am perfectly willing to put my info right there in the comment fields. However, for a couple of blogs I went ahead and took the leap. One blog I used to read went to requiring you to create an account, log in each time, enter a captcha, then the comment was sent to moderation. I had no desire to jump through that many hoops just to converse with the author so I not only stopped commenting, I stopped even visiting. This evening I visited a new blog that is requiring a subscription fee: $3.47 per month to comment. Are there a lot of people willing to pay over $40 a year to contribute to someone else’s blog?

The pay-to-say blog just answered me (on Twitter LOL) saying that the fee will keep the conversation civil and I should try the free 30 day trial.
Hmmm….

• If the only way you can keep your commenters civil is by charging them, perhaps you aren’t inspiring the right kind of discussion.
• There is no way I am ever going to pay for the “privilege” of commenting on a blog site, so why would I spend 30 days starting conversations I won’t be around to follow?

I’m happy that Twitter allows people to spread the word to a much larger audience, I just miss the days of long comment threads.

BTW: I have seen Disqus* on many sites, which allows “signing in” to comment with one of your existing social media accounts; Twitter, Yahoo, Facebook… and keeps track of all your comments across multiple sites. The best of both worlds.

* I realize there are others that offer similar functionality. I reference Disqus because it seems to be the best and most widely used.

UPDATE: From the comments, a differing view. See his full post on Ricochet here

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Another Reason To Hate Apple
2. Comment Spam